Ads can be very weird. I’m having trouble deciding whether this one is good:
“Introducing this summer’s new Frappuccino flavor: S’mores! Now you can sip on all the flavor of a campfire, which you shouldn’t sip, because that’s dangerous.”
At least I’m talking about the ad — that’s a positive sign, right? And I’m not the only one. When I took this screenshot, four thousand people had commented on the picture.
What I find confusing is that the humorously nonsensical caption doesn’t quite relate to the picture. There’s a tenuous woodsy/camping connection, but I don’t get the story. Is the yeti grumpy because he tried to sip on a campfire? But now he’s soothed by a s’mores-flavored Frappuccino?
If you can explain this ad, hit me up on Facebook or Twitter. Or heck, just email me: sonyaellenmann@gmail.com.
Obviously this billboard wins when it comes to design. The mouthy headphones and three-dimensionality are eye-catching. But how about the necessary intellectual aspects?
Well… the billboard conveys a sense of rock-‘n’-roll brashness, and you can identify the brands Nokia and XpressMusic if you look closely. Obviously it has something to do with cell phones (back in the quaint old days of flip phones). But what is the message of the billboard? What is it proposing to the viewer? Mysterious. The think component is not spelled out sufficiently.
I encountered this Instamotor ad on Twitter (on my phone, since I use AdBlock on the web). I think it’s a pretty good ad, even though I’m not convinced that car ownership is a better deal than Uber. Let’s evaluate Instamotor’s ad based on the principles of People-Optimized Marketing, summed up by the keywords think, feel, act, and design.
THINK: The caption reads, “You can’t Uber to Big Sur.” Your brain is immediately prompted to fill in the missing information. Why not just take Uber? Because it would be super expensive. Why go to Big Sur, anyway? Because it’s beautiful (reinforced by the photo). This has further implications…
FEEL: Thinking about Big Sur, looking at the snapshot of pretty California scenery, contemplating a weekend getaway… Feelings of pleasurable freedom, maybe even nostalgia. Now you’re going to associate those emotions with Instamotor, and the idea of driving to an idyllic camping spot.
ACT: You can tap the button and download the app, which is quite direct. This is one of the few scenarios where the viewer is able to act posthaste, which is a cool thing about mobile ads. Alternately, you can fave the tweet, retweet, and/or follow Instamotor.
DESIGN: In my opinion, the visual would work better without the iPhone screenshot imposed on the Big Sur image. Besides that, well done.
Many marketers don’t consider how normal human beings will interact with their advertisements. This dilemma spans the profession, evident in the work of creative directors, designers, copywriters, account managers, etc. People-Optimized Marketing is a rubric for considering how marketers’ output will perform, based on simple principles.
Effective advertisements make the viewer think, feel, and act. In order for those reactions to be provoked, the visual design must be clear and interesting.
Curiosity gaps coax viewers into thinking. Ads should give the viewer just enough information to prompt them to finish the story, drawing connections in their own mind. Guide the viewer toward a particular narrative without spelling it out entirely.
How do good ads make people feel?
Emotional responses are simple. For the most part, people care about other people, preferably specific people with faces and personalities. Ads can also use symbols and connotations to evoke particular moods, like this ad that shows buildings about to domino into catastrophe:
Most ads won’t get the viewer to make a purchase right away. Rather, good ads give people what they need to act later. The product or service is identified, the brand is clear, and ideally the product is positively differentiated from what the competition offers. Triggers are another important consideration, as discussed in Jonah Berger’s study of virality, Contagious.
What makes an ad well-designed?
Design is more subjective than the other categories. In general, prioritize clarity and simplicity. Viewers need to be able to read the caption (if there is one) and identify the branding. I’ve written about this extensively when it comes to billboards. If you can make the design interesting or beautiful, that’s icing on the cake! Remember, cake needs frosting to be delicious.
Obviously not. People-Optimized Marketing is more about attitude than specific mandates. That said, ads that neglect to make viewers think, feel, and act are missing the opportunity to really engage viewers.
Click here to see all my posts about People-Optimized Marketing.
I could have called this post, “Why I’m Bearish On Bitcoin”. The draft has been in my notes for a long time. I might as well see if anyone will bother to flesh out the idea, or disagree with me — either reaction is welcome! Digital currencies are on my mind today because I had lunch with my friend Eva Gantz, who is the community manager at Stellar. She is, coincidentally, stellar! Anyway…
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will fail because of the feature for which they are most lauded: theoretically, no trust required. Veteran journalist Felix Salmon has noted this flaw, as has Sidney Sida Zhang. Cryptocurrencies don’t just incorporate anonymity and lack of trust — they depend on it. Unfortunately for the future of techno-libertarian money, trust is what makes human systems work.
I struggle with this in my personal life. I like to be in control, but I have to outsource what I don’t know how to do, or don’t have time to do. For example, someone else grows the food that I eat. Someone else wrote the code for my website. Someone else takes care of plumbing infrastructure. I have to trust all those people to do their jobs. To a certain extent I can verify them, through consumer and political procedures, through tracking journalism, but eventually it comes down to trust. Trust is essential societal grease.
That’s my entire hypothesis, pretty much. Here’s some interesting cryptocurrency reading (in addition to the articles I linked above by Salmon and Zhang):
I emailed Martin Weigert about this a while ago, and he told me, “I have not worried so much about trust when it comes to Bitcoin. But probably that is because I have only bought like a half Bitcoin so far, so there was always the acceptance of a potential total loss.” Then he asked if my qualms were about Bitcoin specifically or the whole technological basis of it. The following is my response:
From what I’ve read, the base technology is pretty sound. People are very excited about the blockchain. The concern is re: wallets and banks. Inevitably you have to trust a third party to “take care of” your Bitcoins, and sometimes that doesn’t go well, when banks are hacked or abscond with the funds. So the third party must be trustworthy. There have to be checks and balances, leading to centralized authorities, which is what Bitcoin enthusiasts wanted to circumvent.
I am a member of the Amazon Associates program. If you click on an Amazon link from this site and subsequently buy something, I may receive a small commission (at no cost to you).
