Whither the concept?

With all due respect (now I can pretty much say whatever I want, right?) to the advertising and marketing folks who are constantly tripping over themselves to find the next new thing, it’s time to take stock of what really works out there in the marketplace. And by ‘works’ I don’t mean gets some press, a few name-checks on blogs and a brief, one-time sales lift. I mean real, honest-to-goodness brand building that changes the way consumers relate to what you’re selling.

What started me on this latest jag was actually a stunt created by Glow, a BBDO agency in Germany, on behalf of their client, the moderately racy underwear brand Blush Dessous.

New Blush window-wear

Call it ambient marketing. Or interactive display advertising. Or dream up some new label that makes you seem smart; like you’ve discovered a whole new category of communications. Regardless, the genius is in the idea; the sassy, inviting, a little bit risque idea that, coincidentally, is everything, it seems, that the brand wants to be.

Another great example (while I’m exploring my feminine side) is Leo Burnett’s campaign for Tampax featuring Mother Nature and her monthly ‘gift.’

The ads aren’t for everyone, but you’ve got to give it to the people who had the courage to take a bold new step in this anachronistic ad category. They came up with a whole new way to make the marketing relevant and, in so doing, managed to break down a few language barriers, as well. Only a great concept can do that.

In contrast, we have Burger King’s Whopper® Sacrifice.

Sacrificial campaign

Now I’m sure criticizing this year’s most talked-about commercial Facebook app is going to draw some ire, but I’m sorry: It just doesn’t pass the sniff test. BK’s ‘concept’ was to insinuate the brand into social networks with the promise of a free Whopper® in exchange for un-friending 10 people. And after pulling the promotion over a disagreement with FB, they were able to claim that 23,000 meat-like sandwich products were given away for free. Now I’m all for sampling, but that’s ridiculous. The promotion most likely didn’t help BK acquire any new customers. It didn’t inspire loyalty. And it sure as hell didn’t win them any fans among those people who were summarily doinked by their erstwhile ‘friends.’ What it did was prove that a huge brand and an otherwise incredibly talented agency can join forces to create a meaningless Web gimic (when not insulting impoverished villagers in remote parts of the world).

And then there’s Geico’s Kash character: Literally a wad of bills with a pair of dime-store fake eyeballs perched on top. TV spots give this assemblage human qualities and aver that it represents the money you would be saving if you went with Geico. Whatever. And to drive the point home, it was apparently necessary to create a Twitter account for said wad.

Twhat?!

Please note: This is not an open invitation for social media mavens to offer up the myriad ways in which Twitter can be used as a business tool. It’s simply to say that the concept behind Kash is weak at best. As a result, the advertising executions are worse, and the presence of the character on Twitter simply adds insult to serious advertising injury.

So those last examples offer a couple of cautionary tales. The first is that, in a lot of marketing situations, bad publicity really is bad. Not that we as creative professionals should be cowed or limited by what our critics might say. But we have a responsibility as brand stewards to do right by our clients, and to not put them or their businesses in harm’s way just for the sake of indulging our own interests.

The other is that if the foundational concept is mediocre, then no amount of technical or popular wizardry is going to make the work resonant. I know this sounds remedial, but you’d be surprised by how many people actually believe something like the Burger King and Geico campaigns radiate brilliance and come up with elaborate arguments to convince you of the same.

Or is it to convince themselves?