繼電車男追女記和電車男的情人節後，林氏兄弟在剛過去的十二月再度推出Youtube互動遊戲，名為宅男最後的120小時 (下稱宅男120)。一樣的題材，不能錯認的風格，和利用Youtube Annotation造成的互動功能，讓宅男120人氣爆燈，點擊次數在截稿前已突頗一百萬大關，達1,035,954人次，成績驕人。
在Google隨便search了一下，看到林氏兄弟在本港著名的香港高登論壇開的post，才知道宅男120原來是香港旅發局為推廣香港繽紛冬日節而拍的廣告。在旅發局的網站也有一個小方格online banner去推廣這個遊戲。雖然沒有找到新聞稿，但官網上的banner看來已證實了這個消息。回想宅男120的遊戲片段，不斷 showcase香港的各處旅遊景點，原來不是巧合，是為推廣旅遊。
作為一個廣告人，我要為旅發局的潮流觸覺，勇氣和刻意的保持距離鼓掌喝彩。利用宅男追女仔來做廣告就是潮。就算是商業機構，也只有Tempo嘗試過。作為半政府組織，旅發局跟得上Tempo，實在令人驚喜。
起用林氏兄弟並對於撰寫劇本和拍攝給予巨大的空間，有這種無比的勇氣和開明成就了宅男120的空前成功。把主人翁說成宅男：喜歡動漫，說話猥褻又無聊，說冷笑話，見到女性即時投入自己的幻想世界。這樣的描寫絕對有可能被人覺得是醜化台灣年輕人。就算是商業機構，都要三思而後行。旅發局不只是公司，更向外代表香港，也能夠如此開明，理解到宅男電車男是台灣和香港青少年的共同話題，並不會引起反感，勇敢地把劇本交由林氏兄弟負責，實屬難得。
更值得留意的是旅發局對此Viral若即若離的態度。利用港台兩地forum, blog和各大流行網站作網上宣傳的同時，在官網上也放了banner證明是自己廣告，但卻沒有發新聞稿去說些甚麼。因為這是一個Viral Advertisement，大家玩後覺得過癮，從小道消息知道是旅發局就好了。沒必要如一般廣告計劃一樣，說是找了哪個明星哪個設計師合作，或者寫很多Advertorial去充撐場面。Viral最忌就是”場面”和官方的Endorsement，越山寨，就越受歡迎。
可以說，宅男120的目標觀眾非常precise，就是針對兩岸三地的年輕人，中年人或者其他群體都不一定會喜歡。但宅男120證明了一點，宣傳香港不一定要靠成龍或者任何明星。因為口吻很非官方，很地道，很有香港特色的廣告還是能成功的。而且，這樣的廣告有一個最大的好處，就是讓外界看到香港的另一面。除了擁有購物天堂的外表，這小島還有一個富創意，懂包容又具生命力的心。
Showing posts with label Viral. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Viral. Show all posts
Monday, January 4, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
不浪漫的男人是狗!？
上一次看過飛利浦為女人拍的送禮廣告，今次來看看為已婚男士拍的送禮廣告。畢竟，在這個世界，男人送禮給女人的市場還是較大的。下面是美國百貨公司JCPenney去年聖誕節的廣告，得過獎的，欣賞一下吧。
牽涉到兩性關係的廣告，十居其九不外乎將兩性定型，再用兩性對同一事件的不同期望開玩笑。雖說這是一條老掉牙的formula，但橋唔怕舊，最緊要 受，運用得宜還是一樣有趣。Beware of the Doghouse就是其中一個好例子。男士送禮講求實用，但女人卻大多討厭實用型禮物，因為實用的另一方面就是不華麗。抓住這個對送禮的期望差異大造文 章，就成了JCPenney的狗屋廣告。
今年JCPenney再下一城，推出了Beware of the Doghouse的續集Return to the Doghouse，故事的主角是上一集送了健身器材給老婆的老翁Donny。上一集我們知道Donny已經在狗屋裡待了很久 (在Review board看他犯案的當年，他還是滿頭白髮的，但在狗屋過了一段日子，頭髮都已經全沒了)。到了今集，他終於有了覺悟，買了頸鍊送給老婆，Review Board也同意放他回去，從過正常生活。
這條Viral可說是佳作，Review Board上提到的Case太爆笑，甚麼Beer making kit、寫著Greatest wife的金牌(這其實有點logical error，老婆只有一個，可以跟誰比較而得出她是Greatest wife的結論？)、在健身室求婚等等，無不令人捧腹大笑，簡直令人不能抑制與朋友分享的衝動。但今年的重頭戲不在Viral身上，而是在片末宣傳的Bewareofthedoghouse.com， 讓我們都可以把”壞男人”關進狗屋。原告人可以upload相片或影片或利用Facebook Connect搜索他與其他女性接觸的痛腳作為呈堂證供。系統會把證據組合成一段像是案件重組的Video，而且每個Case都會有獨立的網址供大家 share開去。被告收到email通知知道自己被關進狗屋後也可以用webcam或者麥克風進行五秒鐘的自我抗辯，然後用Facebook Connect找證人為自己辯護。這個批鬥”衰男人”的遊戲讓廣告進化成一個Campaign。Viral在Youtube上熱播只是第一部，引大家進去玩他的遊戲。不甘心每天在狗屋摺衣服(男人最怕做家務…)想還自己清白就只有找證人支持自己，讓更多人牽連進來。
JCPenney這廣告毫不掩飾地高呼不浪漫的男人是狗，就算只是個廣告創意，只是個玩笑，也真是非常大膽。開首說過這可能並不是甚麼特別的創意， 老婆懲罰送禮沒誠意的老公，誰都能想得出來。但為甚麼過往都從未見過？可能就是太大膽了，創意部想了出來，未出門就先給客戶部斬了，不用了。就算廣告公司 的提出了，客戶也不敢採用。所以紐約Saatchi & Saatchi夠膽提出這創意，客戶又夠膽採用，確實值得我們掌聲鼓勵。
咦，上一次蛇王你不是說過送禮貴乎心意，要照顧一個新的需要嗎？頸鍊戒指每個女人都有，哪裡算是新的需要？但女人的確很喜歡首飾，這怎麼解釋呢？其實事情很簡單，不必 想那麼複雜，就是女人對首飾的渴求是不會感到厭倦而且永不止息的。你今年送了給她，到下一年她就像從沒收過一樣，又需要一個新的了。
牽涉到兩性關係的廣告，十居其九不外乎將兩性定型，再用兩性對同一事件的不同期望開玩笑。雖說這是一條老掉牙的formula，但橋唔怕舊，最緊要 受，運用得宜還是一樣有趣。Beware of the Doghouse就是其中一個好例子。男士送禮講求實用，但女人卻大多討厭實用型禮物，因為實用的另一方面就是不華麗。抓住這個對送禮的期望差異大造文 章，就成了JCPenney的狗屋廣告。
今年JCPenney再下一城，推出了Beware of the Doghouse的續集Return to the Doghouse，故事的主角是上一集送了健身器材給老婆的老翁Donny。上一集我們知道Donny已經在狗屋裡待了很久 (在Review board看他犯案的當年，他還是滿頭白髮的，但在狗屋過了一段日子，頭髮都已經全沒了)。到了今集，他終於有了覺悟，買了頸鍊送給老婆，Review Board也同意放他回去，從過正常生活。
這條Viral可說是佳作，Review Board上提到的Case太爆笑，甚麼Beer making kit、寫著Greatest wife的金牌(這其實有點logical error，老婆只有一個，可以跟誰比較而得出她是Greatest wife的結論？)、在健身室求婚等等，無不令人捧腹大笑，簡直令人不能抑制與朋友分享的衝動。但今年的重頭戲不在Viral身上，而是在片末宣傳的Bewareofthedoghouse.com， 讓我們都可以把”壞男人”關進狗屋。原告人可以upload相片或影片或利用Facebook Connect搜索他與其他女性接觸的痛腳作為呈堂證供。系統會把證據組合成一段像是案件重組的Video，而且每個Case都會有獨立的網址供大家 share開去。被告收到email通知知道自己被關進狗屋後也可以用webcam或者麥克風進行五秒鐘的自我抗辯，然後用Facebook Connect找證人為自己辯護。這個批鬥”衰男人”的遊戲讓廣告進化成一個Campaign。Viral在Youtube上熱播只是第一部，引大家進去玩他的遊戲。不甘心每天在狗屋摺衣服(男人最怕做家務…)想還自己清白就只有找證人支持自己，讓更多人牽連進來。
起訴不浪漫的男人
五秒自辯時間大概只夠說：法官大人，我無辜架!
用Facebook Connect找證人為自己辯護吧
JCPenney這廣告毫不掩飾地高呼不浪漫的男人是狗，就算只是個廣告創意，只是個玩笑，也真是非常大膽。開首說過這可能並不是甚麼特別的創意， 老婆懲罰送禮沒誠意的老公，誰都能想得出來。但為甚麼過往都從未見過？可能就是太大膽了，創意部想了出來，未出門就先給客戶部斬了，不用了。就算廣告公司 的提出了，客戶也不敢採用。所以紐約Saatchi & Saatchi夠膽提出這創意，客戶又夠膽採用，確實值得我們掌聲鼓勵。
咦，上一次蛇王你不是說過送禮貴乎心意，要照顧一個新的需要嗎？頸鍊戒指每個女人都有，哪裡算是新的需要？但女人的確很喜歡首飾，這怎麼解釋呢？其實事情很簡單，不必 想那麼複雜，就是女人對首飾的渴求是不會感到厭倦而且永不止息的。你今年送了給她，到下一年她就像從沒收過一樣，又需要一個新的了。
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Cause Advertising - Aids Concern
Above is a copy of a popular video published on Youtube last week (The original video was removed by the publisher). The title reads: HK Girl Scolds Aids-carrying Boyfriend. Page views skyrocketed to more than 80000 in just three days before a NGO, Aids Concern, revealed that they were behind the video and that it was part of their promotion campaign urging people not to stigmatize Aids carrier.
The most fundamental thing of this ad, the message, was very, I would not say wrong, but, certainly controversial. It gave me an impression that it encouraged people not to discriminate or isolate Aids victims even if they got the disease from soliciting prostitutes. It was a big step forward compared to Aids Concern's previous campaign in 2007 (video below). Back then, the message was superficial because it mentioned Aids victims only without going deeper into how these people got Aids at the first place. But I suppose they had their answer on this. All the spokespersons they used are the "good guys". They did not use any villain actor even everyone knows the actors are only normal people in their real lives. The logic flows something like: Good guys don't pay for sex and they do not commit promiscuity. So if they got Aids, they must got it from accidents in blood transfusion or things like that. And because it is an accident, they deserve to be treated equal.
That the new ad argues we should care for those who paid for sex and for aids, begs the question:
Is it right to solicit prostitutes?
This is an ethical question that has no definitely right or wrong and I have no interest to discuss it here. Throw your ethical hat away and let's focus on what it means to this advertising campaign. The Hong Kong society has yet to reach consensus regarding this topic but I am quite sure the majority holds negative attitude towards it. Many commented that the girl in the clip had the right to be angry and that she was not angry enough. (That's also a reason why people suspected the video was fake before it was officially announced) Hong Kong is far from liberal. Being the devil's advocate on an ethical question in such a place is a death strategy. So, why go such a step forward when Hong Kong is so conservative that many still think it is not good to have any kind of contact with Aids patients?
I do not know whether what I interpreted was what they meant. If it was not, they better revise their execution to make things clearer for the audience. If it was, they better evaluate the whole strategy, what their organization was supporting and why they did so.
Cause advertising is very different from commercial advertising. It is so different that a large part of its success is built on the righteousness of its message; we do not donate because a charity is cool and trendy but because it is doing something good. So get the message right when you do advertise for a cause. Do not compromise the message for the sake of minor things like execution and choice of media. Be very clear about what you are doing and what you are saying.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Bittersweet, that's really me? - The Execution
Now that Vita's has aired another TVC to promote its Ceylon Lemon Tea, we can have a better grasp of both the idea and style of execution by identifying the common denomintors between the two. This post will discuss each of these notable commonalities one by one.
Going back to the basics
The most important commonality we can find is without a doubt the rap song that goes from end to end. Like most rap songs that emphasize the lyrics, the melody is not the main part is virtually unidentifiable. But the problems is the lyrics are not any better. Most of the song was just a rap version of the taste, which was a functional benefit, of the product. When you spend most your time talking about your functional benefit, like what they did with their Ceylon Lemon Tea TVC, you are going back to the basics. It mentioned bittersweet and linked up with attitudes and stated it was the choice of teens. However, the connection cannot be clearly and easily seen.
The fake bling-bling
Talking about the background and other factors, it becomes even more weird. You see behind MC Jin a "lemon girl" and a "tea girl"... I just can't understand what they are for... And then there are the flashy clothes and decoration. Just from the look of it, you can tell they are real gold and diamonds. Cause they look so ridiculously cheap. More likely just some reflecting paints or cheap things like that. I cannot feel any hint of true bling bling hip hop from the ad, even they try very hard to do so by having lemon girls wearing pseudo-bling tube tops in virtually every shot of the ad.
A non-infectious viral video
Above you see a so called "viral" video posted by a user called bittersweet88888888 on youtube. Just in case you don't know what a viral video is, viral advertising is a relatively new kind of advertising that is intended to be shared among friends and even become the talk of the town. It does so be pretending to be real public-contributed content that is of news value. It is a new way to beat ad avoidance and thus get the message out in the cluttered marketplace.
Now we come back to Vita's video. The title of the video says it's a quarrel between MC Jin and Wan Kwong, the two spokespersons. It's ok, not bad, still somewhat worth to have a look. But the execution of the video was as worse as it can be. How come the video is shot even before the quarrel has begun? How come the quarrel rooted from just the two of them ran into the other? How come there's wasn't any sense of anger between the two? It's easy to spot the two are acting according to a script. And the problem extends to the author's name, bittersweet88888888, disclosing its own identity by its name... Not even a touch of realness. (Covering the "foul words" with sound effect doesn't help but makes it even more fake and processed, a perfect demonstration of the Chinese saying of 畫蛇添足) Poorly thought out. It's probably the worst intended "viral" campaign I have ever seen. If people know the video is an ad, they are much less likely to watch and to share it. That's why, unsurprisingly, the video gets less than 24000 views only.
And most importantly, do all these executions reflect the idea -- Bittersweet? I cannot draw any connection between Vita's to bittersweet aside from MC Jin stating it directly. The flashy clothes, the lemon lady, the lyrics of the song, all of these feel so fake. I do not think the idea of bittersweet is well supported and well communicated.
Going back to the basics
The most important commonality we can find is without a doubt the rap song that goes from end to end. Like most rap songs that emphasize the lyrics, the melody is not the main part is virtually unidentifiable. But the problems is the lyrics are not any better. Most of the song was just a rap version of the taste, which was a functional benefit, of the product. When you spend most your time talking about your functional benefit, like what they did with their Ceylon Lemon Tea TVC, you are going back to the basics. It mentioned bittersweet and linked up with attitudes and stated it was the choice of teens. However, the connection cannot be clearly and easily seen.
The fake bling-bling
Talking about the background and other factors, it becomes even more weird. You see behind MC Jin a "lemon girl" and a "tea girl"... I just can't understand what they are for... And then there are the flashy clothes and decoration. Just from the look of it, you can tell they are real gold and diamonds. Cause they look so ridiculously cheap. More likely just some reflecting paints or cheap things like that. I cannot feel any hint of true bling bling hip hop from the ad, even they try very hard to do so by having lemon girls wearing pseudo-bling tube tops in virtually every shot of the ad.
A non-infectious viral video
Above you see a so called "viral" video posted by a user called bittersweet88888888 on youtube. Just in case you don't know what a viral video is, viral advertising is a relatively new kind of advertising that is intended to be shared among friends and even become the talk of the town. It does so be pretending to be real public-contributed content that is of news value. It is a new way to beat ad avoidance and thus get the message out in the cluttered marketplace.
Now we come back to Vita's video. The title of the video says it's a quarrel between MC Jin and Wan Kwong, the two spokespersons. It's ok, not bad, still somewhat worth to have a look. But the execution of the video was as worse as it can be. How come the video is shot even before the quarrel has begun? How come the quarrel rooted from just the two of them ran into the other? How come there's wasn't any sense of anger between the two? It's easy to spot the two are acting according to a script. And the problem extends to the author's name, bittersweet88888888, disclosing its own identity by its name... Not even a touch of realness. (Covering the "foul words" with sound effect doesn't help but makes it even more fake and processed, a perfect demonstration of the Chinese saying of 畫蛇添足) Poorly thought out. It's probably the worst intended "viral" campaign I have ever seen. If people know the video is an ad, they are much less likely to watch and to share it. That's why, unsurprisingly, the video gets less than 24000 views only.
And most importantly, do all these executions reflect the idea -- Bittersweet? I cannot draw any connection between Vita's to bittersweet aside from MC Jin stating it directly. The flashy clothes, the lemon lady, the lyrics of the song, all of these feel so fake. I do not think the idea of bittersweet is well supported and well communicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)