Although it was wildly popular throughout ad agency creative departments, Honda UK’s two–minute “Cog” will not be seen by US audiences. A US Honda executive acknowledged the Wieden & Kennedy, London, spot was “cute as a button”, but said it wouldn’t work in America, due to lack of product benefits and the high cost of 120 seconds of airtime.
The ad in question, which you can see with its pals at Ad Age is fantastic. It screened here in Australia for quite a while earlier this year and generated all kinds of buzz; not just around the water cooler but in the media, too. Costing £6 million and requiring 606 takes before it was done right, there are no special effects or trick photography involved; it is in itself a work of art.
Why not the US, then? Cost is one thing for sure, but the success of a marketing campaign is generally accepted as an offset to that investment. Do US Honda execs believe that Americans just wouldn’t like the ad? Not “get it”, perhaps? Do they believe that Americans, unlike Britons and Australians, wouldn’t sit silent, awestruck as something so intriguing works its way across their television screens for two minutes? Generally speaking, television advertising is noisy, annoying, and ultimately forgettable —we tend to look away or chat with those around us during ad breaks— but I am always fascinated by commercials that are subtle, or silent. Silence coming from the television is such a break in the monotony of the usual “SALE, SALE, SALE on RUGS, RUGS, RUGS!” bullshit we see every day that I turn around to see what could be wrong with the TV.
To have a room of people completely enthralled, completely engaged by your advertisement —even before they know what it’s for— is unique. At the end of the spot, when your name and logo hold the screen for those precious few seconds, that is important. At that moment, when the viewer realizes that your company went to all the trouble of filming such a huge and costly advertisement for your pleasure without jamming products down your throat violently for the entire duration… you have them inspired. Its thoughtfulness breeds respect for your brand, and that is clearly what Honda US execs are missing. They just don’t get it.
Posted by Chris Clark on December 25, 2003 at 5:04 PM
With MacWorld SF scant weeks away, the rumor mill has been working overtime with the idea of an “mini iPod”; a flash–memory based MP3 player from Apple that is not only smaller than the iPod (physically and in terms of song capacity) but cheaper. Looking back to my PowerPod wet dream, this actually makes more sense. Why make a bigger, badder, more fully–featured, more expensive ‘Pod to sell exclusively to gadget junkies and the super–rich when you can sell a cut–down, featureless, plain–vanilla ‘Pod to the masses?
Popular as the iPod is, people are reluctant to drop $400 on it. Those same people (myself included) probably wouldn’t think twice to spend $100 on a gizmo that you could say is “just as good”. It wouldn’t carry as many songs and would probably lack things like iCal/Address Book sync, but money is money and a great many people are willing to pay less money for less features; something Apple is generally loathe to accept when it comes to its computers. But the iPod isn’t a computer, it’s an accessory. A fashionable accessory. A cheaper alternative to the iPod, while still Apple–branded, means guaranteed business for the iTunes Music Store. When owners outgrow the capacity of their MiniPod, they’ll likely upgrade to an iPod. It’s lock–in; simple as that. In the mean time, it means that Apple can dominate the part of the MP3–player market where they currently have no standing (the cheap end) and conceivably swallow the market whole.
And who wouldn’t like to see that?
Posted by Chris Clark on December 25, 2003 at 6:08 PM
I was heartily amused when I read Christian Bogen’s weblog entry dated September 27 of this year. Well, I wasn’t amused right away because I don’t speak German, but Google tells me he says:
The layout is ajar against Chris Clarks decaffeinated; in the context the question arises whether I should not also do without archives.
Whether or not his layout is “ajar against” mine doesn’t really worry me (the translation is what amuses me most), but the lack of archives here at decaffeinated dot org is something that has concerned me for a while. Colin bugs me about it incessantly (among other things), but the greatest part of me has been unmotivated to do anything about it. Well, cry no more. Archives are here, readily accessible from the sites navigatory toolbariffic mechanism, and here to stay.
Now everybody, get the hell off my back.
Posted by Chris Clark on December 25, 2003 at 7:16 PM