Branding vs. Feature Advertising
Posted by Joseph Mignano on Sunday, January 22, 2012
Under: Marketing Strategy
I took notice of two new commercials while watching football this weekend. Both commercials were different in their approach to advertising their product.
Take a look at the first ad for Motorola's new Droid Bionic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVnxUJuRPTU.
This ad focuses on a particular product differentiator: the ability to access all files on a computer (even immediately after download), without manually synching the phone. Whether or not this is the only phone that can do this is irrelevant. Unless you are a person who follows mobile technology closely, Motorola has branded their phone as being the phone on the market for this unique, new capability. And they are making the gamble that this feature will be attractive enough to make it worth focusing an entire 30-second spot on.
Now take a look at the next commercial by Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk.
The first question you have to ask yourself about this ad is whether this is a feature ad (like the first sample) or a general branding ad, meant to strengthen awareness of a product or company as opposed to bringing attention to a particular product differentiator. Arguably everything shown in the ad can be done within any other web browser, and it would be incredibly difficult to argue that the general population is unaware of that fact. In addition, the main content of the ad (composing emails, uploading pictures and videos, etc.) are not unique or new in any way. If it is an ad for Google Chrome, it does nothing to differentiate the product. I vote branding all the way.
My second question is then whether or not it is an ad for Google, or for Google Chrome (as the ad claims). My opinion is the ad brands Google as, thinking literally, a solution for capturing family memories. But from a higher level, the ad brands Google as a company that allows you to document and manage the important things in your life. In doing so, it brings attention to Google Chrome to an audience that most likely (unless in an advertising or web development field) doesn't think much about which web browser they use: young adults and parents. The ad is a branding ad for Google itself (not Google Chrome). The ad just happens to have the effect of bringing attention to Google Chrome as yet another product available for use in the wide array of Google products that allow a person to document and manage the important things in their lives.
The bottom line is, of the hundreds of commercials I watched during yesterday's game, the commercial that stood out the most was the Google commercial. As a result, I am much more likely to use the Google platform than I would be to look into Motorola's Droid Bionic.
Which ad do you think was more effective?
Take a look at the first ad for Motorola's new Droid Bionic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVnxUJuRPTU.
This ad focuses on a particular product differentiator: the ability to access all files on a computer (even immediately after download), without manually synching the phone. Whether or not this is the only phone that can do this is irrelevant. Unless you are a person who follows mobile technology closely, Motorola has branded their phone as being the phone on the market for this unique, new capability. And they are making the gamble that this feature will be attractive enough to make it worth focusing an entire 30-second spot on.
Now take a look at the next commercial by Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vkVHijdQk.
The first question you have to ask yourself about this ad is whether this is a feature ad (like the first sample) or a general branding ad, meant to strengthen awareness of a product or company as opposed to bringing attention to a particular product differentiator. Arguably everything shown in the ad can be done within any other web browser, and it would be incredibly difficult to argue that the general population is unaware of that fact. In addition, the main content of the ad (composing emails, uploading pictures and videos, etc.) are not unique or new in any way. If it is an ad for Google Chrome, it does nothing to differentiate the product. I vote branding all the way.
My second question is then whether or not it is an ad for Google, or for Google Chrome (as the ad claims). My opinion is the ad brands Google as, thinking literally, a solution for capturing family memories. But from a higher level, the ad brands Google as a company that allows you to document and manage the important things in your life. In doing so, it brings attention to Google Chrome to an audience that most likely (unless in an advertising or web development field) doesn't think much about which web browser they use: young adults and parents. The ad is a branding ad for Google itself (not Google Chrome). The ad just happens to have the effect of bringing attention to Google Chrome as yet another product available for use in the wide array of Google products that allow a person to document and manage the important things in their lives.
The bottom line is, of the hundreds of commercials I watched during yesterday's game, the commercial that stood out the most was the Google commercial. As a result, I am much more likely to use the Google platform than I would be to look into Motorola's Droid Bionic.
Which ad do you think was more effective?
In : Marketing Strategy