Every time I walk through London Bridge on my way home I see the same backlit poster ad. It has been there for weeks. It says 'Tanya's Tongue is Tired' - no brand in sight, nothing, that's it. But it's amazing the amount of information that can actually be delivered through that message. The brand property - the typography - tells me the ad is for 3 and the message tells me that the network provides a lot of minutes (cost aside) for Tanya the customer to use - so much so that she's worn out because she's talked so much. She's gets to connect with her friends / family and is a happy customer for it. All this is just inference, but it's quite nice the picture you can paint because of four words.
The lack of overt branding I find the most powerful because 3 clearly feel confident enough in their values, tonality and iconic typography that they don't even need it. It smacks of confidence, but not arrogance.
It's interesting to see how big, strong brands in the public eye operate on a simple branding / brand property level. Sky is another good example of much the opposite tactic. They badge content - they own it with their Sky mark. Any possible image of TV content whether that's frogs on a stream, football or High School Musical - stick a Sky logo over the top and they instantly own it. Not only that, it gives the content a sense of credibility and quality.
These are both confident approaches, relying on years of brand equity being built and plugged in. Overt and covert branding techniques both have their merits - but the key to both cases is simplicity
The Umbro ad, when they did the 'digi wall' at Euston station, for the first week there was no logo or any message to be seen, jsut the millions of faces on the walls. After that they turned on the LED screens and finally we knew what it was all about. If they did not reveal their message + their call to action, the consumer would have been lost and the ad would have been wasted. The teaser part of the initial first week just made it stronger and fed the anticipation. Sooner or later you need the call to action. I haven't seen an ad without a purpose yet. And I haven't seen the ad you mentioned of 3, but from what I read I think it is very weak, unless soon they explode with their branding in the same area.
succint articulation of some home truths. Nice stuff.
The thing is I think their brand property has such traction that I understand what they're saying and why they're saying it. With conventional teasers you are left wondering who the brand is, what they're trying to say and why and you're waiting in anticipation for the next piece of the puzzle. If the 3 thing is a teaser and there's a further branded campaign with clear messaging and call to action, then brilliant, I am being told what to think and do. But I like the way that they're not ramming it down my throat because they don't need to. I don't need to second guess. I know it's 3 and I know what they're saying to me.
Hi Louise
Don't you think that by letting you know the brand and the message it is trying to convey, the teaser has lost its purpose? After all, a teaser is supposed to tease, which by your account, the poster has failed to achieve.
Cheers!
AD
It depends what the brief from client is:
If the brief was:
"to engage existing customers without enraging them"
PASS
"to engage existing customers and new customers with a reveal"
"to tease existing cutomers and reveal to reinforce the brand"
We share at least a point of view.
The ultimate difficulty is simplicity.
It's also interesting to note the antithesis of brand simplicity. It seems that some companies (I'm thinking of investment banks, legal firms, and brokerages) choose to consciously go the opposite direction. Many times avoiding branding at all. My rationale was always that these 'specialized' companies are not interested in mass appeal, as their customer base is small and elite. Am I off base?
Louise Kennedy
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 06 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 94
