Everyday I mourn advertisers who have been persuaded to develop animal characters in their storytelling. Geico’s gecko, Bell’s beaver, Alamo’s bison, Telus’ endless “animal farm” count among the many. Invariably these animals speak and have personalities or a voice-over tells a story; yet the message is missed because the visual learning modality takes over. Somehow these advertisers believe they can cram in their meaning in these “disconnected” scripts.
There is no archetypal meaning in any of these characters; meaning can be unearthed in the ethereal dove, the free eagle or the dominant lion. Yes, I know! you have performed focus groups and follow-up awareness (unaided and aided) surveys. But these too bely the effectiveness of this content by survey method and design. They may even get attention from the viewer but that’s all. Attention-getting cannot be your goal. (Attention and awareness are interchangeable.) Your goal must be to develop deep meaning that matches your customers’ meaning.
Some brands may wish to be seen as friendly by featuring animals; but do check your customers’ mental models. You will likely find that friendliness is not the driver nor are animals the “mindmatching” representations. After all the above-mentioned trade in car insurance, auto rental, and telecommunications. There is no doubt that these are anxiety producing segments and as such these brands require the most diligent investigation of customers’ minds and corresponding representations in all its iterations.
Your absolute goal must be to find the meaning in your customers’ minds about your brand and its context. Customers cannot access their thoughts (95%) related to your creative, your brand or its use in up to ten minutes in a focus group where others can judge and alter their responses or in a primed scripted survey by phone conducted by low-wage transient employees. You will never get the results you are looking for because you will never have the information that acually resonates with them.
Engage now in intimate, in-depth, one-on-one, unmoderated emotional discovery. You need only interview a small number to get reliable, scientific and rich information to guide your representations from here on. Market research firms do not generally offer these services because they cannot bill the usual hefty stipend for it.
Learn your customers’ thoughts and you will soon release your cast to the wild.
May 18, 2007 at 10:43UTC
I agree that most animals make for poor branding. Geico’s gecko is cute and funny, but doesn’t make me want to run out and buy their insurance. And how does the gecko relate to the cavemen?
One successful animal campaign that comes to mind is Aflac’s duck. The Aflac product itself – a basket of odd insurance coverage ranging from short term disability to cancer insurance – is nearly impossible to explain in a TV spot. Aflac used their memorable duck (which always quacks “Aflac!”) to tie together commercials which showed people getting paid while convalescing or otherwise deriving benefit from their coverage.
Aflac went from near invisibility to a brand that would probably rank among the most recognizable among US television viewers. I’d guess that these viewers often have only a dim clue as to what Aflac does, but when they start a new job and are offered Aflac options, they’ll remember the brand.
-Roger
May 18, 2007 at 10:43UTC
Hello Roger:
My father bless his soul (he passed last August) loved the Aflac duck. But ask him or I what their brand is about…I sorta thought it was insurance. But there’s no meaning in associating an aliteration to “quack” with a segment. This is a fine example of how advertise succeeds at entertaining only. It is also sad that the corporation had to spend gads of their marketing budget making an acronym into an audible name. The Aflac duck will do much for Hollywood and a zoo but little for Aflac. He was such a great character that we watched his antics and missed everything else. Many brands fail to integrate their brands in the story.
And the Geico gecko and cavemen confuse the message rather than deepen with meaning. The cavemen maessge communicates that “its so simple a caveman do it” (they never say what it is they have to do by the way) and the gecko rambles on about God knows what. He is a sweet little cockney fella but again in the casting line-up with the duck.
What both brands may achieve by the sheer enormity of their expense is recall when someone is in the buying cycle–but there is no emotion in the process. And no sooner than they cease their advertising their memory will evaporate within a few months. This is high maintenance marketing. A monster with a hefty appetite. The brand must generate a life of its own. You don’t have to be on the airways to do that. Marketing dollars should achieve more.
Perhaps now Geico and Aflac can sit back and think about their customers’ mental models about insurance and their brands. And change their communications and points of customer contact to match. Otherwise they will suffer attrition and the cost of acquisition will rise.
May 20, 2008 at 10:43UTC
While in the broad sense I agree with your thought process, I do find that the use of animals can break through the clutter extremely effectively and create a breakout brand name in short order. If we look back to some of the most successful brands built in the past 50 years, The Cracker Jack boy, the Coppertone girl with her pants down, Mr. Whipple, the Snuggle bear and many many more – found their brand voice through a character.
Nothing has changed except the character is a “live” animal. Although I agree that use of the wrong animal doesn’t help build a brand and the strategy and message must be spot on, but use of the right one can, in fact, create a memorable brand worthy of the product.
Much of this is moot however, when you can spend virtually unlimited funds on advertising to grow your awareness. Many of us can make a “hero” of any product given the right amount of money to do so.