And please tell me that not a single dime was wasted “researching” this. And please tell me that no better ideas (such as NOT running this) were discarded in favor of telling me that it is now possible to purchase Miller Lite in a wide-mouth aluminum container (100% recyclable variety).
This is the very opposite of good beer advertising. It has zero appetite appeal. It has zero charm. It has zero humanity. Zero fun.
Good beer advertising understands that consumers’ beer choice is not a rational decision. Beer is fun. It really is that simple. And to pretend otherwise is to go in precisely the wrong direction.
The rational thing to do is NOT to drink beer. So beer advertising has to serve as the license to have fun. So, logically, the ads should serve as the slightly devilish friend winking and elbowing you in the ribs. Cajoling you into going to the pub till you say “F**k it! Why not?”. The best current example of this approach is the Dos Equis ad campaign: The Most Interesting Man in The World. I have found myself drinking Dos Equis (instead of Modelo Especiale) PURELY as a result of liking the ads.
I understand why Miller put that wretchedly awful billboard up though. Being fun and exciting is hard. It takes skill and finesse. But most of all it takes caring about the other person. In this case the passerby. And caring about what people actually think of you (your product, your brand, your beer, your billboard) complicates your life.
It’s much easier to pretend that people in the real world really give a shite about your “wide mouth” (sounds icky, doesn’t it) 100% recyclable aluminum can. And that putting up ugly ads that look sound and feel like a slide from a powerpoint presentation will actually bring people closer to your brand.
What a waste. If only they’d just used common sense.
UPDATE: UK ad legend dave trott just provided me with the UK equivalent of the above ad. it looks nicer, as you might exppect. I’m sure this tested through the roof too. Yawn. It’s beer people. it’s not that complicated. unless you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re doing in the first place.
19 responses so far ↓
Dan O'Connor // November 9, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
Ah yes. The mountains are blue. My cans are venting. And the waste is environmentally friendly. Finally, I no longer have to worry if my beer is cold or at the very least drinkable.
Cheers.
Kevin Gordon // November 9, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
More Castrol than Miller.
It rather implies:
“A big-mouth pint for loud-mouthed people.”
john w. // November 9, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
Vinny
I stuck this up on Dave’s brandrepublic spot but I’d like your take on it too.
Talking of beer, ‘The Woman Whisperer’ is the best ad I’ve seen in a long time for beer. Great idea. Great script, direction, casting, editing, acting and lighting.
For some strange reason the ozzies seem to be the only ones left, to me, who have a healthy handle on sexism by meeting it up front with humour.
The U.K and America used to be this way inclined but now we seem to run scared. Ironically here in the U.K we are now mainly left with inverted sexism for a range of products. The only alcoholic brand that I can think of that goes down a ’sexist’ route in the U.K is for ‘Wkd’.
Going back to ‘The Woman Whisperer’, I agree with Dave that it’s all in the line “the woman whisperer”, once you say that, guys in pubs everywhere will fill in the rest but should we be factoring in the opposition? Should we always get the women on board, even if the ad is primarily aimed at men and visa versa?
For instance would ‘The Woman Whisperer’ still work if she said, “Bugger off mate!” stormed out with man in tow with the end slogan “At least your mates can stay a bit longer”? Would that give both parties a sense that are in charge?
Men would swear they are one of the crowd and not the hen-picked one whilst women might drink that brand too as it shows them to be strong and dominant. Would it compromise the brand or would it open up the brand further?
MJ // November 9, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
This is obviously an incredibly bad idea. But it doesn’t top Crown Imports decision to spend $20MM on :30 spots promoting “Corona Light, Now Available In A Can”. Having worked on that account for 6 years, I was completely dumbstruck when I saw it.
First of all there is the small fact that the entire Corona brand was built on the romance of the bottle and lime. But do they really believe that the consumer will be excited to learn that their beer is available in a can? Really? So is Natural Light and Schaefer.
Dan // November 9, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
MJ – yeah, I remember paying $8 for a corona in Miami. It came in a can with a plastic cup with a lime in the bottom. I was more dumbstruck that Corona actually came in cans than I was at the fact I was paying $8 for a beer I could get anywhere.
The bottle is their brand.
dave trott // November 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
Vinny,
Just so you know it isn’t only American agencies.
This is beer advertising done by a very good London agency.
Everything you said applies to this also:
http://www.cucocreative.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/stella-artois-recyclage-glass.jpg
http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/dtb/archive/2009/08/21/it-s-a-joke.aspx
dave trott // November 9, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
Sorry, the second one was the wrong link.
Hopefully this is the right one:
http://www.cucocreative.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/stella-artois-recyclage-aluminium.jpg
simonbilling // November 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
“The rational thing to do is NOT to drink beer. So beer advertising has to serve as the license to have fun.”
That is seriously one of the best insights into beer marketing.
Not only is the ad as dull as a barium meal – what fricken beer drinker really cares about recycling?
Light beer drinkers? Everybody with an ounce of sense knows light just lets you pound more beers. There was a great Aussie ad when lights were first being introduced down under. Strategy was basically “you can drink more before you chunder”.
simonbilling // November 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
Actually, the quote above is a great insight into all marketing. The rational thing is NOT to spend the money. Advertising provides the license buy.
john w. // November 10, 2009 at 4:31 am |
“Drink more before you chunder” from the boys down under. Brilliant!
Ciaran McCabe // November 10, 2009 at 8:09 am |
Vinny,
Not sure why Dave T. sent that Stella Artois ad.
Nothing wrong with it, nice to see Terry Lovelock back at the top of his game!
Ciaran
john w. // November 10, 2009 at 9:35 am |
I think both examples are set for the recycling plant. Advertising needs to slap the water. How else do we expect the fish to move?
Justin Oswald // November 10, 2009 at 9:37 am |
Wow, not even “You don’t buy a beer can, you just rent it”? That had to at least have been a first thought.
Is it the fault of the client for saying no to everything else that must have proceeded this or is it the fault of the agency for not telling the client they’re wasting their money on something no one will remember. Except for ad people, who it will make angry and who, generally, make a point of not buying products that’s sold by advertising they hate.
theescapepod // November 10, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
thanks for all the comments. and the pic dave.
justin, i’m guessing this is result of a client who doesn’t know (or maybe care) about communications. and frankly, the agency responsible is not noted for its creative output.
it only irritated me because i pass it every day. it’s just dumb from every possible angle. and a waste of everyone’s time. at least the UK ad had some style. the miller ad was dumb and ugly.
terry lovelock indeed ciaran!
will atkinson // November 11, 2009 at 3:31 am |
Nothing to do with this post – the book is called Get Smashed by Sam Delaney – it’s kind of ok-ish.
Phil // November 11, 2009 at 6:12 am |
Isn’t there a typo too? Not 100% sure but shouldn’t it be ‘its great taste?’
Phil // November 11, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
Addendum. It is a typo. ‘Its’ is the possessive form of it. So anything ‘it’ has becomes ‘its’. ‘It’s’ is an abbreviation of ‘it is’ or ‘it has’. So there. A rubbish ad and IT’S spelt wrong.
theescapepod // November 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
Yes will. that was published recently. not killing you though? that’s a pity. wasn’t there also a documentary about those years. The Men From The Agency i think it was called. can’t find it.
theescapepod // November 16, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
phil. sorry your comments got snagged in the spam filter. so they can’t spell either? Oy