Three-Fifths Brown
April 14, 2009 in Branding, Facebook, Movies, Race« Time Warner’s Austin Cap Debate Moves to City Hall
From Easy To Geeky: A Top 10 List »
Never in a million years did I think I would end up working in Advertising.
Never.
The idea first popped up when I stumbled upon and applied for WK12, Wieden+Kennedy’s “experimental” internship program. I didn’t get in.
That was back in ’04, and I should’ve realized the match earlier, because I was obsessed with commercials and billboards as a kid. The socioeconomic delta between my neighborhood and my friends’ cranked up the contrast on the beer and luxury car dominated, predatory campaigns.
Wearing the heads down on my VCR with repeated rewinding of commercials, it didn’t take me long to identify what, in my head, I call the “Majority of Minorites” rule:
Unless attempting to market specifically to a minority, fewer than half of the members of any marketing piece will belong to said minority.
…
Hm.
…
So…I started writing this post about Next Day Air (can’t wait to see it) and The Matrix: Revolutions being extremely rare exceptions to the rule, but I’m calling an audible because I just remembered something.
A few days ago @hyams posted a tweet about a gay couple in a commercial. I just took the time to track it down and it’s terribly interesting.
Granted, this commercial isn’t an exception to the Majority rule, but its rampant ambiguity is fascinating. Is the “couple” gay? Are they targeting the Gay community? Is the rainbow pattern on his shirt a clue? Is never seeing a clear shot of either man’s ring finger on their left hand a coincidence?
Does the rule apply if you’re not sure if the subjects are members?
Have a look for yourself, and be sure to check out the conversation on YouTube and Twitter as well.
6 Comments to Three-Fifths Brown
Leave a comment
Find Mark
- Branding (11)
- car2go (13)
- Commercials (3)
- Facebook (8)
- Humor (1)
- MLB.TV (18)
- Movies (2)
- Music (3)
- Of The Week (6)
- Politics (1)
- Race (3)
- Site (3)
- Sports (3)
- Startup (8)
- Talks (2)
- Tech (14)
- Twitter (9)
- Uncategorized (573)
- Usability (4)
- Video Games (1)
- July 2012
- April 2011
- October 2010
- August 2010
- May 2010
- February 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- January 2007
- August 2006
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
Could you unpack your rule a bit for a non-advertising person? What does the term “members of a piece” mean in this context? Does it mean persons in a given ad product? Thanks.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was trying to say. I’ll tweak that wording…
Where do you think the early-2000s DDB/Charles Stone III “True” (a/k/a “Whassup?”) Budweiser commercials fit into the rule? Are they an exception because it had quick mass-market appeal by Anheuser-Busch or would you argue that it had been specifically marketing to the segment and the mass-market crossover was an accident? I see arguments both ways.
On one hand, some of A-B’s work (particularly at the time) is arguably described by the “beer . . . dominated, predatory campaigns” you describe above. A-B is certainly no stranger to designing campaigns to specific minority markets.
On the other, the campaign seemed to me to be fairly mass-market, with a rollout during the NFL playoffs leading up to a Super Bowl spot and then follow-up through the spring basketball season. The buys seemed to go more to the “young drinkers” market that Bud typically aims for rather than a specific minority market. Of course, the campaign did have a intense (albeit brief) crossover appeal in practice. Also, while I think any firm as big as DDB can do targeted marketing, their prime client base seems to be primarily companies in mass-market appeal.
So I’d tend to put it as an exception, on balance, but was wondering what you thought.
Grr! Why isn’t WordPress telling me when I get comments?
The “Whassup?” spot is a fantastic exception to the rule. I was in college at the time and I can’t think of any campaign that spawned a crossover catch-phrase as pervasive as that one was.
I’d actually say it’s neither of the options you suggested. I don’t think they were targeting minorities, and I don’t think it was purely A-B’s reach that made it cross over.
In my head, it worked _because_ it was an exception to the rule. There was a perceived authenticity to the spot that gave it legs. They actually highlighted that perception with their Yuppie “What are you doing?” spots.
I think any campaign that uses race (or any other minority) as a crutch when trying to appeal to the mass-market needs to tread rightly. Whassup? was a classic of a campaign, but it’s an extremely fine line.
What is funny in some spaces (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x77pz4_office-space-opening-scene_fun), can leave you open to criticism in others (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfY76ZT2ewc).
Very insightful. Thanks!
I’m just psyched you guys are reading! :)