Said no brand ever.
The 'banned' Sodastream commercial was
never designed to show at the Superbowl.
The whole thing was Bogus-sky!
Video: Aired commercial. (Also originally banned in the UK months prior)
The aired ad delivers the proposition incisively. Its execution is visually appealing, and strategically it builds lots of relevant memory cues. Generally, it's a better ad.
But the most conclusive evidence that Bogusky was up to something is: There is no way anyone, let alone Bogusky, would put two competing brand's logos in a Superbowl commercial.
Putting your competition in your ad, especially when it's the market leader, is something akin to trying to pick someone up at a bar by pointing out the perfect-10 model in the corner.
But the most conclusive evidence that Bogusky was up to something is: There is no way anyone, let alone Bogusky, would put two competing brand's logos in a Superbowl commercial.
Putting your competition in your ad, especially when it's the market leader, is something akin to trying to pick someone up at a bar by pointing out the perfect-10 model in the corner.
We know enough about how we consume traditional advertising to know that it's all about memory. (Start here, Buyhaviour 1: Availability bias, if you don't.)
In this ad, with the spotlight firmly on Coke and Pepsi, the audience would have been left with two brands in their memories. Both of which weren't the one that paid for it.
In this ad, with the spotlight firmly on Coke and Pepsi, the audience would have been left with two brands in their memories. Both of which weren't the one that paid for it.
So, the banned version could only have been effective if there was a guarantee the audience paid full attention to it. That the audience consumed it not as a traditional ad and passively, but actively. Pulled, not pushed.
What if you could devise a way to achieve this?
Hmmm. Now, if there ever was a creative wily enough to pull
this off, who comes to mind?
Bogusky.
So, this is what happened:
- He sees the controversy of the original banned UK ad.
(the one that ends up being shown at the Superbowl). He takes note that
the ad received a lot of free media based on
the controversy.
- He decides to replicate this in the USA for the
Superbowl. The brief changes from the
strategic 'greenwashed' one to simply 'create talkability'. (But wouldn't
it be nice to do both?)
- He makes an ad designed to be pulled, with the intent to blame the competition. He knows he can count on people's inherent mistrust of big brands, and he also knows that playing to this stereotype will stir interest.
- He creates his commercial (webfilm) that demonises Coke
and Pepsi. Then pulls it himself, but blames Coke and Pepsi saying they're
running scared.
- This generates masses of
free publicity, which in turn sparks talkability, which gets
people to want to see the video. (Want to
see what the big greedy brands don't want them to.)
- So, he publishes the 'banned' version online, knowing he's set up an environment where he has an engrossed audience. People search it out, (Pull it to them) and watch it actively, not passively.
- It goes viral. He's created talkability and shareabilty, which gets Sodastream in the news media (Earned media) allowing the brand to fully articulate their proposition. Plus, he still plays the original (the banned one from the UK) at the Superbowl, which is now also watched with more interest, and punctuates the proposition.
- 5 million hits on YouTube for the banned ad.
- A reach of 108 million for the ad showed at the
Superbowl.
- Countless other impressions from the free PR.
And he payed the exact same $4 million as any other
Superbowl advertiser.
Genius.
By Christopher Ott