Which creative treatment would catch your attention?
Check out these two videos for Quattro for Women, with the bikini area trimmer. The first one is pretty much how you'd think they would introduce the new product. It's about 90 seconds long so I am guessing they trimmed it down for a TV spot are using the longer form on their website. The second….well, it's not what I would have expected. (Feed readers and e-mail subscribers, please click here to view videos.)
So what do you think? One is incredibly safe…the other, not so much. But, which one do you think will actually sell more razors?
Not exactly apples to apples there. You have a made-for-TV :30 and a ninety-second product demo that was probably made for their website. You can’t compare the two.
The :30 reminded me of the movie Edward Scissorhands. I’m not sure that’s a good thing:-)
I’m not suggesting they’re apples for apples per se, although I think they give us a good frame of reference for comparison. The first video is a traditional new product demo and could be easily cut down to a :30 spot.
The second one is clearly a different spin. A risky spin here in the States.
My question is — is the risk worth it? Will it work? or should they have gone the safer/more direct route?
IMHO the second one is strangely enough, more to the point. Quick and creatively tells you exactly what the product will do: shave whatever you need shaving in any shape you want shaving.
Not sure why it is a risky spin in the States – must be missing something.
Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)
Interestingly, I didn’t catch the subtlety of the US ad until the second view. When I did, I found it amusing but not offensive. A little daring? Perhaps, but I wouldn’t call it risky either.
On the British ad, I LOVED the comment (paraphrasing) – “You can be very creative with it.”
Would I purchase? You bet. I’m all for creativity in all my professional and personal endeavors. 🙂
The first looks like a demo for women logging on to the website at 1:36. The second is a quick 30 seconds TV Spot.
I am assuming the second one is the “risky” version? If so, I think it is subtle and appropriate enough to get the point across.
Why do I feel as though the wrong videos were posted? Am I missing something?
Here in the States…anything that plays around with the area of sex and certainly slang terms for sex or body parts is somehow see as risque.
Our TV spots, in general, are much more tame than you have in Europe or other parts of the world.
But…maybe the infusion of all the erectile dysfunction ads (they dominate any male heavy programming like sports) has reduced the stigma.
That’s what is interesting — they’re both US produced and running. I saw the 2nd one on TV last night which is what prompted the post.
Maybe the prude factor of American TV spots is waning. I wonder if that’s a good thing or not.
I didn’t catch the pun in the 2nd video at first either.
I always pegged you for a creative woman!
I think maybe we guys are less likely to get the risque pun in the 2nd video.
Watch it again.
Both US? Really? Because in the first spot, she referred to it as a Wilken Sword brand, in the second as Schick. (I’m old enough to [barely] remember Wilkenson Sword brand blades advertised on TV, but I haven’t heard mention of it for decades since.
But I do believe the brand is still promoted in the UK.
Or I could just be hallucinating.
The second spot was definitley more attention-getting from this perspective. Niche marketing for the tonsorial arts.
If, as you identified, the first spot is running on Quattro’s website it is more likely to “sell” more razors simply because any woman watching the spot on Shick’s website got there “on purpose” and is motivated to purchase.
The second ad, like all TV commercials, is pushed upon the audience who may, or may not be “in the market for a new razor”. Additionally, I agree with others who said the visual effect was too subtle. It reminded me of the AT&T Cingular raising the bars TV commercials – however the background bars in the AT&T spots are much more “in your face”.
I agree that the visual on the second is a bit subtle, I didn’t notice until the second view. This may be an issue as viewers who think they “saw” the ad the first time may not give it enough attention a second time when it comes on. I only did due to the discussion.
I do think it’s a clever metaphor for the audience they’re targeting, maybe if they just color edit to call a bit more attention to the, er, plants.
As for the U.S. market I think we go through phases of greater and lesser strictness. I think between the regime change toward greater social liberalism and the bad economy, advertisers may start testing the boundaries again.
I didnt get the “risky” factor on the second video until the second time I watched it… Then again, I am a guy and I am pretty possitive I am not the target public of this ad… and neither are 80% of the commenters of this post (which are male)…
Did any women get the 30 second ad the first time? Roberta and Karin didnt either.
Peter, depends on what you mean by ‘get it’ 😉
@Peter, Karin … well, there’s getting it and then there’s “getting it.” Too risque? You be the judge 🙂
I think the second commercial is amusing and made me smile a bit and made me think about trying one. I liked the subtle visual effect… reminded me of the commercials for bashioum plastic surgery.
This didn’t seem to be in the risk arena by my standards. Like Drew stated…maybe the prude factor of American TV spots is waning or perhaps my view is just tainted from over-exposure.
The first one is better and more effective.
I have seen each just one time but i can remember the whole ad just in the first. All men will enjoy that girl and her beautiful body. And they will want to buy it for his girlfreind.
The trees are looking like illing trees or something else?…
the second video isn’t exactly typical for a product launch, but it’s very clever and just the tiniest bit naughty. I think people who “get it” will think it’s great. And women are bound to love the product.
I loved the second ad; quite creative. And I don’t think it’s risky at all. In fact, I think the message is delivered in a much more direct way. (I know that seems odd to say, but the first one didn’t have visuals…) It was so obvious to me, it’s interesting that so many people posting didn’t catch it the first time.
And in the first one, I think it’s at least running in the UK. She says it’s only “8 pounds 99.” I hope that’s the price and not the weight!
LOVED the 2nd one. Creative and a bit sexy – which probably also describes the target market. I saw this as I was watching TV with my husband, we got a good chuckle out of it. It is more engaging and makes the audience think a little to understand the whole message.
The first video makes woman buy as it explains how to use and gives confidence.
The second video will make men buy it as a present for their woman or mistresses in the hope they become young again.
So you’re saying that the 2nd spot should have been more blatant?
Thanks for stopping by. Tell us more about your theory on the loosening of US prudeness. (Is prudeness a word?)
By the way, I checked out your blog — excellent stuff!
I didn’t get it the first time either. And usually if there’s a double entendre, I pride myself on catching it.
It’s playful for sure…and you’re right. That probably does match their target audience’s attitude. Tell us the truth, did your husband get it the first time or was he as clueless as some of the rest of the guys?
I think the second video was subtle enough to be effective and shouldn’t upset anyone. Who ever came up with the idea was very clever.
Risky? Are you paying attention to the show’s that surround this commercial? It’s TAME in comparison.