advertising and other stuff. no, really.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

You can call me Fred if you want.

Insanity > definition > same thing > over and > over. Right? K, just checking. I swear I don’t get it. It’s a great American message of a brand voice—10 years ago. But according to Ad Age, Dodge will blast a message that people probably don’t want to hear 190 times during tonight’s Game 6 of the World Series. That equals a lot of money* that had to come from somewhere. And in times like these... forget deathwish, does (part of) Detroit have a suicide wish?

No innovation beyond a new logo. Big payloads. Tough trucks. (ALL trucks are tough, no?) CEOs glossing over the troubles they’ve had to instead focus on feel-good aspirational themes. Why? Shouldn’t a tough, hard-working truck warrant an honest dialog with an audience which supposedly shares those same traits? Guess we’ll never know because nobody ever tries.

So will this translate to sales? Better branding? Agency coffers? Latter: Check! Underscoring the rant, I’m writing this as I watch the Chevy truck commercial from last year with John Mellencamp singing about “Our Country.” (I mean, if you’re going to buy 190 spots, why not be the only truck brand.) Circle of insanity now complete.

Wanna sell more? Do something that really makes a difference in the wallets of the workers featured in the spot: Shave 15-20 mpg off current fuel ratings and watch them fly out the door. People might then almost forget Chrysler and Dodge took bailout money.


*Assuming the average World Series rate of $400K per :30 (plus regular prime-time rates).


Jetpacks said...

I played that just now. Usually I have headphones on and didn't realize the speakers were on. Wife wasn't watching, but said, "That voice. Ugh." I asked here to elaborate. "That kind of voice is supposed to be for sentimental epic discoveries, and that wasn't one."

Kevin said...

15 to 20 more mpg? Without compromising what it is that a truck needs to do its impossible. It also ignores the fact that mileage is not as much of a concern as durability, reliability, payload, and other more pressing needs for a truck owner. If you are looking for 30-40 mpg, a truck is not for you.

mtlb said...

@Kevin - An exaggeration of course, (but, you would like a truck thaty could get that). Point is, that trucks change little over the years and all have the same message: More payload, better hauling, etc. I'm not seeing significant innovation that GM and Dodge are claiming. If Detroit's looking to trucks to bail them out (ouch), good luck. ;-p