The insight within

Great effect but what's wrong?

Having recently browsed through Campaign’s best creative agency of this decade, I came across an ad that I had forgotten about but still loved to this very day. Despite modern day’s growth in technology and society’s maturity in artistic civility, this particular ad hones in on the bloke inside of every man.

 

Now from a personal perspective, I like the production, it makes me smile, I’ve always liked the productions, I’ve at times embarrassingly reenacted them across dance floors to the tune of ‘make luv’. I even like the smell, I certainly remember the brand name and yet I still don’t buy the product. So what’s wrong?

As Ivan Pollard says, “A person’s feeling towards a brand is made up of the aggregation of their experiences with that brand layered one on top of another over time”. 

This brand has been apart my life since I was a prepubescent young lad running to matron feeling poorly (anything to get out of Latin!). So it’s safe to say that Lynx has had a lot of time, and a lot of individual influences, to generate a feeling towards the brand.

Clearly it’s not the communications, or even the product that is discouraging, but similarly to the Porsche case study, it’s the person using it that is the problem. In the case of Porsche back in the 90’s, after extensive research among those who drove them showed that the car looked good, it was a great drive and was all round excellent, the company execs simply couldn’t understand why there was a decline in sales. Product was good and the people who were driving them loved it. So what was the issue? The issue was that those who didn’t drive Porsches thought that those who did were a bunch of slick tossers and hence didn’t want to be part of the group. Now when you revert back to the type of male using Lynx, they are often meager, nerdy, teenage and one would assume they would struggle to ever find a girlfriend, despite the resurgence of geek chic. Each time a person sees this uninspiring audience using the product over a period of time, the associated effect on the brand negates the communications that the brand is trying to convey.

Still love the ads though.

How serious?

After queuing for what seemed like eternity at the Bureau de change, it was finally my turn. Upon reaching the counter, I noticed a rather interesting sign.

This concerned me. How serious did I have to be? £100 serious? Given the astronomical amounts of government bail out money pumping into the economy, maybe £1million serious? It then occurred to me that I may have to put on a stern face in order to get served. Was I even dressed appropriately to be taken seriously?
Perhaps all retail stores think in this manner but don't overtly publicize it. Surely, any form of custom should be taken seriously? I think its particularly important for both the consumer and the brand, whether spending £200,000 or £2, as it's the experience that determines whether or not they return, or, even more crucially, if the store is recommended or berated. Spending millions of pounds on advertising can only do so much in the communication mix when the actual in-store experience is dire.

[Thankfully, I was taken seriously, even with my clown outfit on]

Implicit communication says whole lot more

Wandering aimlessly through the heart of Mayfair and feeling quite parched, a friend and I stumbled across a great new drinking establishment called the Coach and Horses. The experience was so pleasurable that I even chose to investigate it's history. The place seriously oozed tradition and nobility.
It was only whilst leaving that I noticed a plaque on the entrance door, which I thought was truly brilliant. Bearing in mind its location, I felt it communicated its heritage and intended clientele exceptionally well.

[Funnily enough, our entrance was similar to that of out-of-towners entering an old wild west saloon]