Word on the
street is that Aflac Insurance is thinking about ditching the duck. But how
could that be? Isn't the duck supposed to be one of the greatest
advertising icons ever created? Sure we all know the duck.
Unfortunately after millions of dollars spent on advertising, the duck is about
all we know about Aflac.
The problem,
according to Aflac's chief marketing officer Jeff Herbert, is that most
consumers still haven't a clue what his company sells. So, he intends to
86 the duck and concentrate on advertising that is more educational, less
entertaining. I agree with him in this case. National advertisers get the
creative wrong just like local direct advertisers get it wrong. They tend
to forget that their advertising must do three important things:
1. Teach potential consumers who you are
2. Teach potential customers what you do in language they absolutely
understand with no cliches
3. Teach potential customers how to get in touch with you.
Don't assume
that just because most people recognize a commercial when they see or hear it
that they will necessarily relate back to that spot when it comes time to
buy. In Aflac's case we all may know who they are, we may even know how to
get in touch with them, but if the ad doesn't give consumers compelling reasons
to contact the advertiser they won't. Research seems to indicate that most
people aren't calling Aflac to buy, because Aflac forgot to tell us what Aflac
really does and how we would benefit directly by doing business with them. So
they screwed up Rule Number Two.
The same is
true with the Pacific Life whale. Sure the whale is pretty. The whale
is big. The production must have cost a fortune. Pacific Life's CEO or their
agency's creative director takes great whale shots. But I'll be darned if
those commercials ever give me a single good reason to go to Pacific Life and
buy. Sorry, but they'd probably sell more of whatever it is they sell if
they hadn't screwed up Rule Number Two. In my view the whale spots are about as
effective as a dead duck.
What about
clients that get Rule Number Two right but mess up Rule Number One or Rule
Number Three? For example, people are still talking about the funny
commercial featuring the office full of monkeys. The problem is that
hardly anyone remembers that Careerbuilder.com is the advertiser. So
then, what's the point of buying the commercial time? So the
creative director can win an award? The monkey spot is cute, but if it's not
delivering for the client, then the spot is about as valuable to Careerbuilder as
a dead duck.
Remember the
spot two years ago about the man with his arm down the garbage
disposal? Remember his look of dread when his wife came in,
flipped the switch and said, "Oh, you've put in a new ceiling
fan." Lots of people remember that spot. But when I ask
them who the advertiser was most people say Home Depot or Lowe's. That's a
big problem, wouldn't you agree, for Ace Hardware who paid for the ad? In
this case I'd have to give that spot a big, fat "F." Their spot
was another dead duck. They violated Advertising Rule Number One and
Advertising Rule Number Three.
Follow the
Three Rules for creative when you're dealing with local direct clients and
you're miles ahead of many of the "creative geniuses" on Madison
Avenue.
Let us know
about the "dead duck" commercials you've seen or heard that are
failing the client.
