Lets talk about adverts

I’ve been uninspired by any news stories today. Two adverts have however caught my attention and I’m going to share with you my thoughts about them.

The first is a Coca-Cola ad from Latin America. I’m not endorsing the product, I just think the advert is imaginative:

That must have been a relatively cheap advert to make. I’m bothered by the though that it may not be genuine CCTV footage however. What if those clips were all staged? That would make the advert really empty. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt however. I’m, going to assume that all those clips have been harvested from real CCTV cameras. That makes me feel good, but not good enough to go out and spend money on Cola. Is this how the advert is supposed to work? Am I supposed to look at it and find it interesting in some way, and then go out and buy the product?

I think this second advert is more interesting, probably because it includes nudity.

This one is for Richmond Ham. Now this advert has already worked on me to some extent because, until about 2 hours ago, I didn’t know that Richmond Ham existed. I’ve also watched the ad a couple of times and I would say I might even pick up some of the stuff if I happen to run into it in Tesco. That’s unusual for me. Adverts just seem to wash over me usually.

It’s possible that the advert have different objectives. Everyone already knows the name “Coca-Cola”, and the is probably simply designed to etch the brand name even more firmly on people’s memories. Most people won’t know the Richmond Ham brand, and the advert is likely designed to introduce it.

One more interesting fact about the Richmond advert is that apparently, at time of writing, the ASA has received over 250 complaints about the nudity and the ad therefore is likely to be cut or at least limited to being shown after 9pm. I find it pretty astounding that anyone could find it offensive, but it may all be part of the plan, because it of course makes the ad notorious.

In any case, I like both of them.