Well, the "most anticipated advert of 2006" arrived.
Sony Bravia mkII, but the big debate raging is ...was it worth the wait?
Its a great ad in its own right, its bold, engaging and very visual. It gets across the colour message well. But after that amount of hype and the length of time we were made to wait to see it, its frankly a little disappointing.
Where the first ad was beautiful and implied natural movement, this ad is all man made objects and extravagence.
Where the first ad had wonderfully emulsional (sorry) music, where as this is unsutble and predictable. I dont think Fallon grasped just how much the music made the 'balls' ad work. It was an inspired song choice that probably quadrupled the effect of the ad.
The other problem for me is that much of the paint ends up looking fake because of the colour saturation. It looks like much of the explosions are CGI, even though I dont think any of them are, the less informed will probably think it is.
However. The saving grace of this ad is the final scene. The coloured rain pouring down and creating a rainbow of colours on the ground captures a chunk of that magic the first ad had. Its a beautiful ending to a flawed ad.
I hope the lessons are learnt and the next ad can be beautiful, engaging, and have better music. 7/10 says the school teacher part of me.
8 comments:
Nice ad - not as nice as the hype suggested it would be - but still nice. [and to be fair, better than many out there]
The bit that still bothers me is the fact SONY are trying to 'own' colour when ...
[1] Bravia doesn't have as many colours available as some of its competitiors
[2] colour is pretty much a 'condition-of-entry' for colour TV's [or am I missing something?]
[3] Quoting Billy Connolly - advertising 'colour and picture quality' on television seems abit daft because if the 'picture' looks great on the set the viewer is watching it on, why on earth would they want to buy a new one.
Yeah ... yeah ... loads of people could slag me off about this [and to be honest, I'd sort-of probably agree with them] but in these days where clients are demanding communication that drives consumer motivation ... flogging 'colour' just doesn't seem to be that, errrrrm, that great an idea.
Sorry Fallon.
8/10 for the ad. 4/10 for the idea.
True. Although I would say that:
1. There are plenty of example of companies being considered better featured than the competition when they are in fact worse. Look at the Playstation 2, most people think it is the most powerful console when in fact it was considerably slower than Xbox or GameCube.
2. Thats right of course! But its one of those aspects that even technophobic people can latch onto. Its an easy feature for people who know nothing about tv's to remember.
3. Very true... but still!
I agree in principle, but the supposed sales results for the 'balls' ad wouold say otherwise really.
Very true, both about Heineken and the awful awful awful Samsung ads.
"Tickets to the Cup finals!" ARGH! Crap crap crap crap. But anyway:
I think they have done the right thing personally. Its (Hi-Def) a new technology that is hard to understand for the average punter. Focusing on one thing blatantly helps distinguish them.
Its also a technique that made the old Trinitron CRTs the best selling and most known in the world even at a high price premium.
Ha ... I told you some people would slag me off for my comments - and of course you are right Rob, there is a perfectly good strategy in 'owning' a characteristic that no one else in the category has developed - but colour to me is just so obvious for a colour TV manufacturer ... it's a rational fact where at least in Heineken's case, Refreshment was directly associated to an emotional benefit which meant they could express 'their' version of refreshment.
It's an ad - a good ad - but just an ad and as much as everyone is going on about the sales it's achieved, they don't talk about how, compared to competitors with less concentration of distribution, they are falling short of targets.
I hate it when ad agencies take so much credit for sales when we all know it is a small [albeit, important] cog in the sales chain - which includes such boring things as distribution, warranty, promotions, sales, cultural desirability.
Sorry for ranting - and as I said, I agree with your comments Rob - but I can't help but feel there is so much more Fallon could have done than just 'colour' but to fair - knowing SONY oh-so-well - that's probably all they could get the buggers to agree on, ha
I agree, though I wonder if the campaign was originally designed to cover a different aspect on each ad?
... like.no.other
Maybe colour was the first one, and because it did so well they decided to stick with it?
Also, I don't think I was slagging off your comments...more constructive debating ;)
Slagging is good ...
It often leads to really powerful outcomes ... not the compromised rubbish most people come out with, ha!
But hasn't all this just turned into a circus around the ad? Where's the product? Where's the insight? Where's the brand? How do I as a consumer fit into all of this?
It's a circus. About an ad. With a clown in it.
Slagging is good... i'll remember that ;)
I think in most respects you are right Marcus. The insight is there, its just very simple and one-dimensional; but maybe thats what are they are trying to do, focus people onto one single point of the product.
The problem is that the ad spectacle is taking over from the ad itself. I hope they reign this in next time. Otherwise it could be a dangerous high wire to fall from...
Post a Comment