Advertising, Disrupted
January 24th, 2008 by Andy Didyk
Well. Wow. I’m still in a bit of shock. Philips launched the “Shave Everywhere” campaign last summer, and mercifully it looks like I missed out on it back then. It’s a site that unabashedly describes the benefits of, well, shaving everywhere. They’ve even coined a new phrase, which may be creeping into our everyday language as you read this: “Second Puberty”, or the process by which men begin growing hair in undesirable places as they age. A marketer’s dream.
Tasteful or distasteful? Appropriate or inappropriate? Bravo for broaching a taboo subject in mainstream media, or Shame-on-Philips for assuming men are so base and unintelligent? Everyone may draw their own conclusions, but in the end the site has definitely accomplished its goal: to gain brand awareness by being disruptive.
While I don’t personally find the campaign to be in good taste, I have to tip my hat to Philips for being willing to try something truly creative and potentially dangerous. I think I would echo a lot of creative people in agency jobs in saying, “Wow, I wish the clients I work for would be willing to do something that crazy…looks like fun”.
What could your company do if you weren’t constrained by traditional social mores or accepted advertising tactics? I guess the only way to find out would be to give more marketers and agencies permission to fail while trying out new ideas. Looks like fun.
Thanks to Steve (sort of) =) for the link.
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 24th, 2008 at 11:10 am and is filed under branding, marketing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I agree with you that most agencies don’t push the envelope, preferring to fail with traditional approaches that are safe, than risk making mistakes. Somewhere I read stats revealing that less time is spent on creative than we might assume. In the real world, the obvious and mundane solution prevails because resources are strained to deliver the goods. I believe that most agencies still live in the analog world and have little idea what’s really going on. It may be time to revisit Marshall McLuhan’s 1964 classic, “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” where he proclaimed that the “medium is the message.”
February 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I also tend to think that most agencies feel like they need the work and therefore tend to be much less ballsy and creative than they would like to be. They always justify it with, “well, the client would never accept that idea.” or “it’s too risky” or something similar.
Look to CP+B to see how they’ve risen through the ranks to become one of the top agencies in the world through innovative, truly out of the box ideas. They have clients lining up to work with them.
A funny thing happens when you approach clients with an “abundance” mentality as opposed to a “scarcity” mentality; they love the ideas and they’re willing to pay for them simply because they can sense that you don’t need the work and that means you know what you’re talking about.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Nick, I totally agree with you when it comes to the way in which an agency presents itself to the client will affect the way the client perceives the agency.
Being able to choose your work, or to at least appear as if you are able to choose who you work for, can make all the difference in the world with the right client. Of course, with the wrong client, it works well too because you are able to weed them out right away. Thanks for the thoughts.