Stupid G Commercial

[fredfred]

Ah. Here's the answer. It appears Tokyo Slim is correct. "Gatorade" may dissappear completely. The key statement in the adweek commercial is this: "Omnicom Group's TBWA\\Chiat\\Day is Gatorade's lead agency, having replaced Element 79 on the business in April" So a new agency was brought in and they are expected to do something big. So their "Brilliant" idea (which has now resulted or shown up in a million dollar ad campaign) is pitched as follows: Agency: We need to do something big? Pepsi/Gatorade Marketing Dept execs: Of course Agency: You want to really get people talking about the "new" gatorade? Gatorade Execs: Yes! Yes! Agency: Ok... we'll call it G!!!! At this point gatorade execs are scared to say what they are thinking out loud. After all, TBWA\\Chiat\\Day is a well known (i.e. expensive) ad agency and they were brought in specifically to fix the problem. So unless they have or see a better idea.... they get talked into this idiotic idea. It also implies a hugely expensive branding campaign, which is much more fun (to an advertising creative person) than a "sell the product" commercial. It also implies they are not accountable to sales results, as others have already pointed out. That means they can't catch flack from the client for awhile at least, for the fact that they haven't moved the sales needle. "We weren't trying to... this is a braaaaaaanding campaign". Just because you spend a lot of money on something does not mean it is good. That applies to advertising and Ed Hardy clothes.

 

[ken]

Originally Posted by why

Did you not read my previous posts about ads that failed to actually advertise? It's not about a product...they're advertising a brand just like Nike, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Microsoft, Apple, etc. The difference is we all know a Nike commercial, we all know a Coca Cola commercial, we all know an Apple commercial, etc. My friends and I had no clue what the G was for. I thought it was an NFL charity or something and ignored it.

Advertising fail.

I can't hold this back any longer.

My god, why... If this is real, you are the dumbest dumbass I have ever met, virtually or otherwise.

You ignored it??? You f*cking ignored it??? You were the second person to post in this f*cking thread!

I feel better now, and can probably go another few weeks ignoring you. Have a nice night.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Ok, whatever. You guys can have whatever viewpoint you want. If you are going to stop drinking Gatorade, or G, or whatever because of a stupid ad, you have way more serious problems than not being able to see eye to eye with me. I barely ever drink Gatorade. I don't plan on buying more because of this ad - but I won't be confused when I go to buy it in the future, and it's called G, because the ad did its job. It got me curious enough that I and a bunch of other people went online and looked for what the hell that commercial was about. The fact that most of you clicked on this thread means that you were curious about it too. Maybe you feel let down, or whatever - but the fact remains that the entire object of that ad, was to get you A: to wonder what it was about. And B: To get you to go find out. Everyone participating in this thread wondered what that ad was about, and now you all know.

The facts remain:

Gatorade is changing the name of its product to G, and trying to update their image.

This ad was because of that. It tried to promote the concept and ideology of their company and product. And showed you the new branding.

It generated a lot of interest. Maybe not as much as it COULD have... but enough to have put a significant dent in Google on the 2nd, and its maintained a pretty steady search presence since.

The number of current Gatorade consumers who are turned off by or confused by the ad, and NEVER FIND OUT WHAT IT IS, or stop buying the product because of this ad is going to be minimal. There are no ad campaigns that are going to reach or have the desired effect on everyone. Such a thing does not exist.

You've seen one ad of a teaser campaign. Why are your panties in a twist?

Companies who have run teasers exactly the same way, without a displayed product or much if any recognizable branding in the past with varying levels of success on television and/or print (I just went looking): McDonalds, Nike, Apple, Honda, Sony, Dodge, Amtrak, AT&T, Canon, Microsoft, Virgin Mobile, IBM... the list goes on and on. If you care, you can look it up too.

Maybe you don't like them. That doesn't mean they don't do anything. If they truly did nothing, and there was no benefit to running a teaser campaign, companies would not run them. It's not like they are new. I've seen them in print and on television for years now. Surely the metrics would have come back saying that there was no point, or that it was losing you more money than it made you. Unless you think that the companies listed above are as stupid as you think I am. In which case, again, you probably have bigger problems in your life than not agreeing with me.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by fredfred

Just because you spend a lot of money on something does not mean it is good. That applies to advertising and Ed Hardy clothes.
My point is, of course, that just because it may be "bad" doesn't mean that it did not achieve its purpose. Obviously, in my mind, the fact that we are all sitting here discussing that Gatorade has changed its name to G was sort of the entire reason for them to run that teaser. It may not directly drive sales, but as I've been saying - I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point. Some people here seem to think that this is not worthwhile, therefore it failed. I am not judging whether or not its worthwhile - but companies continue to do it - so it must be doing SOMETHING. I believe what the ad intended to do, it did. Whether or not it was a business success, it was an advertising success. It successfully directed people to discover "What G is". Without them having to tell you - which is a very clever psychological device for getting people to remember it longer, and have a more permanent place in the conscious mind. Something sought out and learned stays with you longer than something you are told. I don't care either way. I'm not going to buy more G, nor boycott it. On a side note - since all these athletes are already under a paid endorsement contract with PepsiCo or Gatorade, how much did they really spend on this ad? Isn't appearing in a new ad campaign a part of the payment they've already received for being a spokesperson? Muhammed Ali seems to be a pretty popular person to appear in non-specific product teaser ads. He was in the Apple "Think Different" print ads too, which featured no products, and only a very tiny apple logo.

 

[Cary Grant]

Originally Posted by why

All ads are ultimately to sell what's being advertised. Stop being dense.

Ultimately yes--- and seeing how long this thread has become. The ad works.

 

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

I believe what the ad intended to do, it did. Whether or not it was a business success, it was an advertising success.

This is the crux of our disagreement.

I posit that no advertising is successful unless it results in business success.

You posit that business success is not necessarily a goal of advertising, and that advertising for advertising's sakes can be viewed as a success.

I partially agree that advertising for advertising's sakes can be a success, but only for the ad agency that is getting paid to create said advertising. I am also glad you do not run my marketing department.

Coke wins again.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by Douglas

I partially agree that advertising for advertising's sakes can be a success, but only for the ad agency that is getting paid to create said advertising. I am also glad you do not run my marketing department.

Funny you should mention that. Marketing, sales, and merchandising is something I was always very good at.

I prefer to work with more flexible, creative, and innovative people anyways. That and the pay are the two real downers about my current employment.

 

[fredfred]

I already pointed out that the Taco Bell "yo quiero" campaign failed to drive sales. It got people talking about the dog plenty, but it did nothing for sales. So I reiterate, just because you paid a lot for something does not make it good. And just because people are talking about your ad or company does not make it good.

And just because people do something twice (or more) does not mean they know what they are doing. They are doing it "because it is the thing to do". Or because their agency talked them into it. Or they have to do SOMETHING to justify their existence as a marketing person. So they do a "branding campaign" for which they are, by definition, NOT held accountable to sales results, which makes their lives less stressful for awhile. That, by the way, is reason enough to do a "branding" campaign.

You can sell product and develop branding at the same time. For many "bad" reasons you can talk yourself into doing a branding only campaign - and one that clearly misses it's mark, too - as the G campaign is evident.

Just 'cause people are talking about something does NOT mean sales will increase (proven by example above). If you don't care about increasing sales... well... there are many possibilities.

Creative people do NOT like to be held accountable to sales results. It prevents them from being "creative".

As for ad costs, the cost of the spots themselves is very, very large. Costs for the spokesman depends on the contracts signed by each person. TV union rules usually require additional payment for use of images... and for each showing of the ad.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by ken

I can't hold this back any longer. My god, why... If this is real, you are the dumbest dumbass I have ever met, virtually or otherwise. You ignored it??? You f*cking ignored it??? You were the second person to post in this f*cking thread! I feel better now, and can probably go another few weeks ignoring you. Have a nice night.
You're pretty slow. I don't run to the computer to find out what 'G' is. I don't give a **** what it is. If that's your thing to do, congrats. I don't think it makes me an idiot.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

I find it sort of amusing that the people in this thread who purport to know so much about advertising are the same people who in this thread are insulting the end user of the product of their industry. Tells you a lot about how they view people.

I still don't believe that ads where the point is brand recognition, not specific sales, hurts the brand. Even the Taco Bell dog ads, while it may not have generated item specific sales, it must have had a net positive effect on the decisions that people made during that time period when it came to eating fast food. I bet that if there were a control survey done, that you'd see a gain in recognition and choice metrics. Maybe I'm mistaken, but other than people calling me stupid and insisting that it doesnt matter, maybe you can back up what you are saying with market data...

 

[fredfred]

If you happen to be referring to me, I'm mocking some of the people in marketing departments. I'm not knocking consumers - them I like. At least they are honest. They are smart enough not to give a darn what "G" is. They are busy doing other things.

I've seen marketing people make decisions that cost their company millions of dollars (literally) - when it's clearly the wrong decision (with data to 'prove' it). But because the money does not come out of their own pockets or budgets, they want to be able to say they spent those millions of dollars. Or they say "it couldn't hurt".

If you think "brand recognition" without sales is of value, then there's no arguing with you. Spend money on TV ads of ANY type, mention the brand (which they don't even bother to explain in the G ads) and you'll succeed in increasing "brand recognition". That's true.

But if you think sales are what is important, then the G campaign is a loser.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by fredfred

But if you think sales are what is important, then the G campaign is a loser.
Its a little early to tell isn't it? I mean, the ads are what, a week and a half old? How can you be so sure? I almost bought some G just to spite you all today. I went to the store and there is no more Gatorade. There is only G. Everything has the new branding already. Regardless of what you believe about "consumers", I happen to be one. I don't speak for everyone, but I speak for the people I've talked to about it out in "the world". And the ad wasn't that horrible. According to Google's metrics, as I said, there has been a pretty steady search presence for "What is G, G commercial" and etc since the ads ran. If I were Pepsi's marketing department (evidently, I should apply there) I'd be congratulating myself on a modest success. I'd imagine that this ad would be around for about another two weeks, and then maybe we'll see something different. What I'd really be hoping for is someone to make a parody to draw more attention to the ad campaign. Maybe I'd drop some money on Saturday Night Live or Conan O'Brien, or something - or maybe I'd just make my own if I trusted my people enough to not make it phony and corporate, and post it on Youtube. If Getting G into the front of people's minds is the goal, so that when they go shopping, they are more likely to purchase it, as I believe it to be - that would be a good viral method to extend and draw attention to the current campaign. I guess I'm just the guy who thinks, hey - Pepsi wanted to re-brand Gatorade. They wanted to re-brand most of their products. If Pepsi came up to me and said, we want to update the brand image, keep our current customer base, and attract new customers to the Gatorade product - I can't think of a better CONCEPT than what has been done. Execution-wise, I'd probably change some of the details of the campaign, but hey, I'm NOT getting paid millions of dollars to re-brand a successful company and try to lure in new customers. I'm just a guy who occasionally watches football, and occasionally drinks Gatorade. I asked earlier in the thread how you guys would have done it differently, had Pepsi approached you to re-brand Gatorade, I still haven't gotten any answers. Its hypothetical, you won't be held accountable for lackluster sales.

 

[jaydc7]

They are basically doing a rebranding, is what I heard. Instead of having flavors like fruit punch and orange, they are going to be rebranding them to compete more with Vitamin Water.

Apparently calling them G is the first step of this transition.

 

[fredfred]

McDonald's is fairly successful. They've added plenty of new products off and on... some have worked, some have failed terribly. But they aren't stupid... they haven't thrown away "McDonald's" - one of the best known brand names in the world.

"Gatorade" is also known around the world. But now it's been thrown out? That's idiotic.

So... I'd keep the brand name. Why start from scratch? Why throw all that value away? If you want to add products... or get it into new areas that's fine, but "Gatorade" is so strong and well known that I'd keep it, for starters.

Exactly what else I'd do would depend on what markets and products they are trying to hit/sell. Drinks only? Clothes? Furniture? Producing a brand image to fit a target market or product is not rocket science.

Did you know Starbucks was crazy enough to try to sell furniture? They had a catalog and everything... a good example of another silly decision.

 

[jaydc7]

I think they are planning on keeping their brand name, just more of a relabeling. I can't imagine them expanding to other markets either.