In the marketing world being “the first” is an incredible thing. Whether it is being the first brand in a niche product category, the first to use a new media strategy or the first to make a creative new ad claim, people take notice. Firsts also provide tremendous competitive advantage. The only thing worse than being second is blatantly copying the brand that did it first. We’re talking to you Dairy Queen!

If you haven’t seen Dairy Queen’s latest campaign – take a look. For me, it’s a little too close to Old Spice’s campaign. We all know how popular and successful Old Spice’s use of the sarcastic new icon was with the over-the-top irony of their spots. They scored a huge “first.” They came up with a creative strategy that really worked to grab (and hold) the attention of their target audience. It was so popular many of the spots went viral, topping the most watched YouTube video charts. So I can certainly understand why someone in a board room at Dairy Queen must’ve thought – let’s do that! And granted, the two brands aren’t even in the same product category, but still – did they really think the copycat campaign wouldn’t be obvious? And the worst part? Others (like Edge Shave Gel) have starting shamelessly jumping on the bandwagon.

Lesson learned: do your own thing. Sure, plenty of people say there are no more new ideas out there; that everything we come up with has probably been used in some way, shape or form at some point over the past 100 years (even if we don’t know it). Maybe that’s true in many cases, but that doesn’t mean we’ve lost our ability to create new and impactful advertising. And I’m not saying we shouldn’t use creative ideas and strategies from great campaigns that are already out there. We should be inspired by the great advertising around us, not take the easy, copycat way out.

For as much intelligent, strategic thought that goes into the creation of a worthwhile ad it still amazes me how one moment of obtuse overanalyzing can ruin a perfectly good ad. We generally have less than two seconds to get a consumer’s attention and get the message across. We know this. Our clients know this.  And yet when presenting ad creative the meetings often go like this:

1. The client looks at the ad and has a natural reaction (usually positive because of our kick ass work) much like a consumer would – they’re not thinking they’re just reacting to it naturally.

2. We’re happy and relieved and talk about how much we love it, too (because our work is so kick ass).

3. THEN the client sits and stares at the ad and starts discussing its contents (while we pray they won’t go into overanalyzing hyperdrive).

4. After pouring over the ad some more the client starts to bring up “what if’s” and “well did you think about this…” questions and scenarios.

From here there’s a back and forth about these “what if” concerns. We try hard to convince everyone that the target audience will be spending 1.2 seconds looking at this ad. And that in that time they’re certainly not going to take 5 minutes pondering some vague deeper meaning, like how an ad for fabric softener could really mean that someone is just plain lazy. At the end of the discussion, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Unfortunately when we lose, the creative suffers. Just imagine if that had happened to a huge brand, like Nike (click to image to enlarge).

As an agency we have very specific and strategic processes in place to be sure every piece of creative that we produce isn’t just interesting to look at, but an effective ad that will resonate with the target audience. So when we go through the process of creating an ad only to have someone (who most likely does NOT fit the target audience profile) decide they think a consumer might be offended or may not understand the simplest of concepts, well it just breaks our little marketing hearts.

Bottom line: ads need to make it into circulation based on their merit from the target audience’s perspective, not your’s, your mom’s and Uncle Sam’s. Think before you overanalyze.

Recently, Fast Company and The Consumerist have posted “the worst ads of 2010.” And since we are in the ad business, we can’t help but put on our little, strategic ad hats, analyze the hell out of the creative and USP, and offer our very own opinion.

Staples

This commercial is obviously on the worst ads list. Have you heard it? With every “WOW,” we seem to become more maniacal. Their “low price” claim isn’t even accurate, ($17.99 for a pack of 8 pens!) making this commercial twice as ineffective. The creative stinks, and the messaging is off. They should stick with “That was easy.”

Quiznos Kitties

Where do we even begin with this one? The Quiznos Kitties have us confused. Are the sandwiches made by cats? Made from cat food? Neither one are appealing. And to top it off, the jingle is just horrendous – what are they even saying? The only good thing about this are those sweet kitty outfits.

Geico

While some people are entertained by the Geico gecko commercials, us ad folk think differently. While the accented lizard has become a brand icon (one of many) for Geico, its purpose simply lies in its ability to help you remember the Geico name. While that might be effective, the gecko promises nothing of Geico. While he is entertaining, can you remember anything more than that, say, the message, perhaps? Now those Cavemen, on the other hand…

Capital One

Another case of the brand icon gone wrong. Can you remember the original purpose of the vikings? Sure, the “Double Miles” message in this ad is clear, but how do the Vikings translate? The messaging and creative don’t work simultaneously, leaving us feeling perplexed. And while we applaud brand consistency, these vikings are case in point for what NOT to carry over.

While entertainment definitely holds strong in tv commercials, effective ads go far beyond that. The key is to create a marriage of creativity and messaging. Lacking either can lead to a bad ad – and a waste of valuable time in front of your audience. Getting their attention is one thing, but don’t fail to use that time to drive home your message.

This morning, our account executive Anna shared with us a piece she read from Advertising Age. The piece, entitled “Why Metrics are Killing Creativity,” really hit home to those of us in the ad world.

Don’t get us wrong; metrics definitely have a place of importance in the ad world. We are realistic, we know our clients have to measure success somehow, to see a return on their investment. But it becomes tough when we’re ONLY thinking about numbers. When metrics inhibit taking risks or executing strategic creative because we’re not considering anything but how many impressions, leads, clicks, conversions, etc. we’re going to get, we’ve become sorely misguided.

While numbers can’t be everything, neither can creativity: don’t do it for the sake of doing it. This is where strategy comes in. Having a cool ad is one thing. Having a fresh, big, new campaign that is targeted at your audience and will resonate with them on an emotional level is another. The latter, if done with strategic purpose, can (and will) deliver the numbers and metrics that we rely on. But to get there you have to put the metrics aside and step outside of the numbers box.

And as much as metrics has become the norm for measuring success, we cannot and must not deny the emotional aspect of branding. Emotional connections are what cause people to identify with brands. Its the break from the norm, the challenge of convention, that stays with consumers. Not the numbers.

Click HERE for a follow up on yesterday’s blog. 

The attitude of LPGA spokespeople seems to be extremely apathetic considering all the backlash they’re receiving for their new policy and the way in which it was presented.  They could show some sensitivity instead of essentially telling everyone it’s between the association and their members.  Since when does it work to basically tell the media,  sports commentators, and community groups to back off because it’s an internal matter?  I’m sorry, but that’s whack.