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.