Because of the way the hamster takes his red hood off in the beginning, that’s why.

Whoever made this ad really did their homework. The amount of details in this ad is almost staggering, and they all contribute to the authenticity of the aesthetic.

Bottom line: Enjoy this kind of campaign while it lasts, because in short order, we’ll all be so jaded that we’d ignore the reappearance of the woolly mammoth, convinced it’s just a scheme to market the latest Ice Age movie.

To repeat what I wrote a while back:

Advertisers are in an arms both against other advertisers and against consumers. All new advertising innovations (new media to advertise in, persuasion tactics etc.) are quickly copied by rival advertisers and they lose their effectiveness quite fast. And on the consumer front, as time goes by consumers become increasingly advertising savvy and more likely to ignore or “see past” advertising (as outlined in the NYT article).

I guess this is and always will be the advertiser’s problem; how to deal with constantly declining returns on advertising. Some brands choose to just out-spend the competition, hoping for first mover advantages in new marketing tactics by hiring the advertising talent du jour. Some brands are more responsive and consumer-centric, and move their focus away from practices to which consumers are no longer responding.

That is Denny’s new ad promoting their All Nighter offering or campaign. And yes, as American Copywriter noted in his blog, the unicorn is indeed high.

Of course, the unicorn plays the role of the stoner to a T. Overall the campaign plays well with modern nuances of the fast food diner. The boys (uh, mythical creatures) have been to a rock concert, and have come to gorge some fast food as their buzz is coming down a bit. The works in the sense that Denny’s isn’t making an ass of itself by trying to be cool and “speaking like the young people do”.

But why the unicorn, the T-Rex and the leprechaun? The main reason would probably be that the campaign is going for a quirky, “WTF?” effect. I guess it does make it potentially more viral. But what I have been thinking about is that with make-belief characters like that, you can say pretty much anything. It’s the old ventriloquist effect: the puppet can say anything, but the person is playing the straight man role. A regular stoner being high as a kite in a Denny’s probably been too much for the bosses at Denny’s. A stoner unicorn? Hilarious!

The campaign deserves some major points though for having profile pages for all the characters on Facebook. The content there is top-notch contemporary and “on character” all the time.

There were a few example videos I used, and here they are, in order of presentation. They’re in the embedded presentation as well, but some folks might want the direct links.

William Shatner’s “Rocketman” performance at the 1978 Science Fiction Movie Awards
Family Guy version of the the Rocketman performance
Coke’s classic “Mean Joe Green ‘Have a Coke and smile’” cultural branding ad
Pepsis’ spoof of Coke’s ad with David Beckham
Jordan Brand XXI ad with kids all over the world doing Michael Jordan impersonations

There’s another one with rapper Master P. I guess this is a continuation of sorts to the Mr T campaign from a while back.

I’ve been thinking why Snickers would choose sort of has-been celebrities to endorse their brand. My guess is that they did some research and found that their brand had an outdated taint to it. I, for example, recall Snickers ads painting it as an performance enhancer of sorts for athletes, which I guess just wasn’t working anymore. The brand was taking itself a bit too seriously.

In the Mr T. ads, you still had a bit of that performance enhancing angle and masculinity left, albeit tongue in cheek. In these new ads, they’ve gone more further out with the irony and self-mocking humor. Both have a celebrity conversing in an unexpected situation with a geeky looking “normal” person.

The first spot features an overweight and out of shape Patrick Ewing dunking (unprovoked) on some fellow name “Ryan” in an exaggerated fashion, with mock posturing after the fact. It is also suggested that the geeky guy knows Ewing as they refer to each other as “Patrick” and “Ryan”. After the dunk sheepishly says “sorry” in the tone you’d say sorry to a friend you’ve just pulled a prank on.

The other ad has Master P asking for the geeky guy’s (called Josh) opinion on an extremely large, diamond-studded “P” necklace that he is intent on buying. I love the geeky guys reaction: a nonchalant but still emotional “I like it!”, as if he was expecting his opinion to be of great value to somebody like Master P.

This slightly out of place chumminess between these somewhat washed up stars and the geeky normal guys plays great and is oddly fascinating. The clumsy wordplay at the end of each spot adds to the self-depreciating humor as well (“Patrick Chewing” and “Master P-Nuts”).

By using guys like Patrick Ewing and Master P and treating the brand in this self-mocking way, Snickers is showing that it’s aware of its current cultural standing, and it is willing to laugh about it. This treatment sort of mixes Snapple’s famous use of “weird” celebrity endorsers (Richie Sambora, Howard Stern, Ivan Lendl) from back in the day with Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” campaign, where Microsoft showed that they know Apple has been talking smack about them in their ads, and here’s what they think of it.

Looking at these example’s it seems to me that confronting your brand’s current meaning(s) head on, and then spinning it to a new direction or making light of it, seems to be the best way to manage it. Some brands fail to show literacy as to what their brand is currently about, and try to introduce a new image/myth/meaning sort of by force. This might have worked in the old days of mass media, but as consumers are more connected now and brand meanings flow freely and fast and are affirmed by consumers more firmly, people can sort of say “that’s not right, right?” when a new, conflicting myth/meaning is introduced.

Put it this way, it’s hard to enter the conversation (I hate that saying on brand interaction, but it fits here) with the intention of steering it without first understanding and acknowledging what the discussion is about. I think Snickers has done a good job with its entry to the conversation regarding itself (especially the Ewing ad played wonderfully with the chocolate-bar-as-performance-enhancer cliches, with exploding backboard and everything). Now we’ll have to see if Snickers’ self-depreciating humor allows them to steer the conversation as well.

If you don’t have the patience to watch the video clip above (you should, it’s one of the most moving videos I’ve ever seen), here’s a short recap of Jason McElway’s story: an autistic kid works as a team manager for his high school varsity team, and in the final game of the season, his coach gives him a chance to play, and he shines. Jason’s story has been featured on ESPN and numerous other networks. Hollywood has of course thrown his hat into the foray: Jason’s family has numerous offers for a feature film, one from Disney.

Moving “local boy” stories that make it big nationally are not a new phenomenon and exclusive to the digital age, but I think the digital age has changed how stories like these can be told and what kind of possibilities it opens for marketers. Because stories like this live on on services like YouTube, they can be narrated in a different way, a lot of nuances of the story can be left open for discovery and “digital folklore”. To illustrate my point, please watch this ad by Gatorade in which James was cast a while ago:

Notice that James’ presence is not highlighted at all. Most viewers will have no idea who that guy is, but that is actually part of the ad’s idea. People who have seen James and who were touched by the story will recognize him and this will create a whole new meaning for them. Most likely these people will forward both the first video and the ad video to their friends as a consequence. The ad is very powerful because the ad is relating to an experience that was very authentic. The challenge for Gatorade, however, is to create credible link to James by handling the subject with enough class and care. I think they did alright.

Here’s an excerpt from the story that I greeted with a satisfied nod (emphasis added):

In honor of Coke Zero’s appointment as lead sponsor of the Coke family of Nascar drivers last year, Crispin built a video game, Rooftop Racer, that places the soft drink front and center. It also struck a branded deal with “The Jimmy Kimmel Show,” spurred out of the host and comedian’s love for the beverage. “What Crispin does is take a simple proposition that we know we need from a product, and they somehow make it entertainment,” said Mr. Shunker. “They don’t mirror pop culture — they help create it.”

There’s a significant distinction there that’s at the center of Crispin’s success. Any agency can hire trend-spotters who collect pop-culture insights that become the foundation of an ad, but Crispin’s work is more culturally primal than that.

The agency creates the stuff that infiltrates, and actually becomes the culture.

The article goes on to blast Crispin’s work on Microsoft so far, though. I personally disagree about the campaign’s so called failure. I think as far as starting to carve a set of new meanings for Microsoft, it’s been very intriguing. Also, it will take time to show true benefits.

“Advertisers distract users; users ignore advertisers; advertisers distract better; users ignore better.”

This is one of the main problems I found with advertising in my master’s thesis. Advertisers are in an arms both against other advertisers and against consumers. All new advertising innovations (new media to advertise in, persuasion tactics etc.) are quickly copied by rival advertisers and they lose their effectiveness quite fast. And on the consumer front, as time goes by consumers become increasingly advertising savvy and more likely to ignore or “see past” advertising (as outlined in the NYT article).

I guess this is and always will be the advertiser’s problem; how to deal with constantly declining returns on advertising. Some brands choose to just out-spend the competition, hoping for first mover advantages in new marketing tactics by hiring the advertising talent du jour. Some brands are more responsive and consumer-centric, and move their focus away from practices to which consumers are no longer responding.

To me, the best way address this problem is not to concentrate on the medium, but rather on the message. Sure, marketing tactics are important, but in this day and age it’s becoming more clear that a message worth spreading within the consumer base is more vital than the right advertising channels. Or rather, as they ask in the Mashable article, “why consumers click?”.

If any ad has been dissected and talked about more the past year than this ad, I’d like to know what it is. Much has been written about Crispin landing the unenviable yet so intriguing task of rebranding Microsoft, and after the Microsoft Mojave campaign, what you see above is finally the first TV-spot.

The casting of Jerry Seinfeld seems very un-Crispin when you first think about it. Hiring a superstar, and a fading one at that (like Antti said in this Jaiku thread “Jerry belongs to the 90s”) seems like a go-to move from the mind-share branding playbook. But while Seinfed (both persona and TV-show character) is not as current or “hip”, he still packs a lot of cultural meaning. Also, how they’ve scripted the ad and treated Jerry as a character is what makes the choice intriguing.

Grant McCracken had a fairly comprehensive rundown of the ad and its meaning. Small excerpt:

The meaning mechanics of the ad are wonderful: Jerry’s shoes squeak like a cartoon character. A store called Shoe Circus. A family gathered outside the store window in solemn and learned reverence for shoes within. The meaningful glance between Jerry and Bill that makes no sense. Seinfeld’s lunatic advice that Bill try wearing his clothes in the shower. The starring role give churros. The idea that anyone would want to earn points in a store like this, especially when the card calls them a “shoe circus clown club member.” The idea that computers could ever be “moist,” “chewy,” and edible. The idea that Jerry suspected this “all along.”

As far as contemporary advertising goes, this ad is indeed rich with nuances and meanings (I’m especially intrigued by the meaningful glance and the knowing smile Jerry and Bill share) that speak to you more than a traditional ad would. I wrote in my master’s thesis that as people’s media-savviness grows, it opens new opportunities for storytelling because people understand the medium better and you don’t need to be so explicit in your selling. However, this media-savviness (combined with market saturation and clutter) also makes people more resentful of ads that they feel are too pushy, “selling” and simply insulting of their intelligence as consumers. And given that the brand in question is Microsoft, the pushiest and most profiteering brand in its industry, I can definitely see why Crispin went for a more “un-selling” approach.

I wrote in the comments of Grant’s post that I think they will be going back to the “run tight” phrase they threw around a few times in the ad. First when Jerry said it, and when the hispanics outside the shop said it. This might be just a clever and indirect way of introducing the new benefit or value proposition. It’ll be interesting to see if/how they revisit the phrase in future spots. I think these ad spots are not meant to be examined individually, they work as one long commercial, sort of how the Cloverfield ad campaign was all part of the experience, almost like a treasure hunt. I guess some parallels to “Lost” work here, too. Like somebody posted in the comments on Grant’s blog, it’s too early to tell if this is a good campaign or not.

But I’m definitely a fan, if not for the sheer volume of discussion the ad has generated.

UPDATE: Here is the second spot, the longer version.