Mars owns the m&m brand, Snickers, and Dove. Mars also controls Wrigley which owns Skittles, Altoids, Starburst, Hubba Bubba, Five gum, Orbit, Extra, and all the Wrigley's gums. Tootsie roll owns Charleston Chew, Junior mints, Razzles, Tootsie Pops, Charms Blow Pops. Overall, there are a few candy dynasties that are charged with advertising all of their products in productive ways.
Above is a Kit Kat Commercial. This commercial summons up feelings that Americans working repetitive and low-wage jobs must feel. The guy's working hard, feeling "like a machine," and the Kit Kat is there to make his day a little bit better. If I in some way empathized with this man, I might choose Kit Kat when looking at all the chocolate selections in a vending machine. Also the commercial is kind of funny, so I might remember it and choose a Kit Kat bar over the others.
The above Skittle ad confuses me. I don't understand why it would make people want to buy Skittles. I guess the idea of not having the use of my hands really bums me out, to the point of it might be a phobia of sorts, so maybe the commercial just doesn't appeal to me specifically. But who really doesn't want the use of their hands. Also, at the same time, my friend just asked me why I was laughing so much at a Skittles commercial, and I honestly do find it very funny. The end, when he pounds his fists on the desk and it turns to Skittles leaves me laughing uncontrollably. It's all in the images. Also the slogan, "Taste the Rainbow, feel the Rainbow," sticks in my mind as the commercial links to the idea of the rainbow being everywhere, acknowledged by many of our senses, and in the case of this poor man, his entire tactile sense is Skittles. In general, I think this ad is intended to make us laugh. As unoriginal as the concept of hilarity inspiring buying is, this commercial successfully accomplishes just that.
The above Snicker's accomplishes two things, it renders Snickers a meal-substitute, hunger-ridding food stuff, and also makes us laugh and willing to buy. The guys are total doofuses, but they're lovable and silly. The displaced hunger plaguing the foreign man is also ridiculous, but embeds the Snickers-getting-rid-of-hunger-idea further in our brains.
This Snickers commercial is flat-out ridiculous. The characters are to put it blatantly, total freaks, very lovable, but very freaky. They're funny looking, wearing funny clothes, and have funny voices. The whole thing is actually kind of gross when you think further about the fact that they're regurgitating Snickers bars. However, it links laughter and goofiness to eating Snickers, and the pile of Snickers on the ground at the end makes the viewer (well me) hungry! The "Free refills with a magic mouth," statement at the end is funny, and it drew my attention. I thought it was some sort of promotion or free-giveaway, but it supports the whole ridiculousness of the commercial in that it's promoting a magic mouth that conjures up an endless supply of Snickers bars, as long as the person's able to laugh. It appeals to the money-savers and bargain-searchers within us all. Also, although kids often don't find themselves buying candy with their own money, I bet it appeals greatly to young children. It's easy, visual humor, like the Skittles commercial, and would appeal to a wide range of ages. The hunger banishing Snickers commercial involves less physical humor and more of (this is a stretch) an intellectual humor. It's about the dorky dudes sitting on their couch, probably stoned, thinking about some man constantly hungry in a foreign land. It appeals to older people, as they have to understand how humorous the whole pot head scene can be.
All these commercials raise more questions for me, most of them related to the reasons behind their production. For starters, who comes up with these ideas? I'd love to meet the person who came up with the Snickers Magic Mouth one. Is it a nerdy genius somewhere who has spent hours studying consumer interests? I just finished the section from Ken Auletta's book, and what I recall the most about Page and Brin is their devotion to facts, figures, and math. They make decisions based on calculations. They calculate what consumers look at, what they value, sticking to an entirely quantitative approach. How do the producers of commercials like this know these ads will attract customers? Could they really find at the end of a math equation the conclusion that Snickers eaters would love to see a bunch of dorky dudes spitting out candy bars? Is the candy advertising industry, candy being something that people don't need but do have to choose amongst, more of a qualitative industry, knowing that humor will attract customers. These commercials use blatant hilarity and involve strong images. I can see the man touching the stapler and watching it turn to Skittles. I see the two lovable dorks giggling and spitting out Snicker's Bars in some random park. They involve incredible, powerful imagery. I also wonder why some commercials use one shot or reference to a product, and why others use so many. The first Snicker's commercial showed one shot of a Snicker's bar, and mentioned it really only once. The rest of the dialogue branched off of the intitial, Snicker's banishes hunger idea, but it was about the hunger itself and its disappearance from there. In the Magic Mouth commercial the Snicker's bar was repeatedly shown to the audience. The first commercial was put on YouTube in October of 2009, and the second in August. It's very possible these commercials were put on Youtube months after release, and that they weren't released in August and October, but if they were, does that mean Snickers has decided to use less brand saturation and show the brand less. The Skittle's commercial too didn't show the Skittles name until the end, but instead showed just the candy. I wonder what's more effective, seeing the colorful candy or the branded package?
I looked at some of the comments under the Snicker's regurgitation video, and most of them included words such as "vomit," "blech," "yuck," and "gross." There were also a few "I lost my appetite"s thrown in the mix. I wonder if Snicker's expected a response like that. Were they aiming to engrain the Snicker's name into the subconscious of the viewer, so that when faced with the vending machine decision, they would remember Snickers. They probably didn't expect the commercial to be appetizing, so I suppose they were probably trying to sell the brand memory rather than a direct desire to buy the brand. In general, the world of advertising is big and scary and daunting, but overall it's exciting. It takes some mucking through, but it's rewarding when questions I've had from watching advertisements are answered in readings and class. The adventure continues...
No comments:
Post a Comment