Strongbow is Selling Itself on the Basis of Quality and I am Confused

You may well have seen the spot by now. It’s no longer particularly new. A TV ad highlighting the seasonal nature of cider apple growing, and the care and attention that goes into making Strongbow cider.

And I’m confused. Because Strongbow isn’t known for quality. It’s known for being cheap, plentiful, and not particularly nice. There’s a reason people mix it with squash. And that it’s one of the main ingredients of snakebite. I have no beef with Strongbow. But it isn’t known for quality.

(Although interestingly in Australia Strongbow is branded as an English heritage product. Cutesy images of trees and apples and everything.)

The point is, there are other ciders, even mass market ones like Magners, which place their quality and care as a key selling point – and it’s believable because they are actually quite nice.

So why is Strongbow going down this route for its advertising? We can only assume that they feel a need to aim for a more mature audience.

After all, Strongbow ads have traditionally been very strong, playing on humour and funny scenarios – exactly the kind of thing to appeal to a younger class of drinker, who wants something cheap but also wants a brand that seems to understand and care about their sense of humour. But perhaps that market is under threat by own brand supermarket offerings, which are much cheaper and taste about the same. Advertising can only trump cost to a point.

That there is one of the most interesting market developments of the last few years. Many value range branded goods are suffering from the competition of cheaper supermarket-made alternatives.

(It’s probably worth an article of its own. I’ll have a think.)

But here’s the main point: if you see an advert that looks odd, seems unusual or out of tone for a brand, start thinking. Why is it there?

Quite often, the answers are more easy to reason out than you think.

Why Put Toilet Bleach on TV?

Why waste money advertising things that just aren't interesting? 

These days people have a myriad of ways to tune out and turn off advertising for things that don't interest them. So there's a legitimate question to ask about the reasons for advertising the mundane.

This piece is effectively an extension of one of the thoughts behind my last post - why after all should consumers buy into things we don't buy into ourselves?

Sometimes it does have to be conceded that there are certain products and circumstances in which money spent on advertising is no longer worth the candle. It certainly may be the case that television is ceasing to be a worthwhile medium for more humdrum products. But that is not to say that advertising for them needs to be abandoned.

There is though a very important point here, which is that with TV ad effectiveness dropping, advertisers for less “sexy” products have to innovate a lot further than most to keep getting their message across.

This can manifest in highly creative art direction, which can act independently of TV and instead work with lower cost formats such as out of home or print (to further this point there are some great recent examples collated at trendhunter.com/slideshow/cleaning-product-ads). After all, in some ways the obvious solution to a less interesting product is to use your creativity to render it more interesting.

But equally, you can go what we might call the "Ogilvy" route, putting emphasis on facts and figures to drive home trust in products - and this is something that print and social media can do well, by capitalising on the higher dwell time and a broader scope for longer copy. Most especially with social media, that dwell time gives the opportunity to build a rapport with your audience, to build personal connections that just aren't possible in other media types. The power of that kind of personal connection is exactly the response we can give to those who would argue for the death of FMCG advertising.

The truth is that if so-called "boring" products can’t be advertised, nothing can. The heart of advertising is convincing people to buy into not only the product, but also the brand behind it, building a relationship between brand and customer. If the message is good, and the relationship is maintained, engagement will follow.

That is as applicable to toilet cleaner as it is to Toyotas.

Do Ads Have to Sell?

There’s an ad running in the UK right now for Freederm (a skincare, anti-zit brand). It’s all about a bird who gets sick of flying in formation and wants to be free. He flies off and gets up to hijinks around the world. The end tagline is “There’s nothing like being free” – and then it says Freederm. I love this ad.

I also really can’t think that it’s good advertising.

That might sound strange. But entertainment doesn’t equal advertising. And there’s the problem. That Freederm spot is fantastic, beautiful, playful – and it barely mentions the brand or the product.

Now at this point branding gurus may pop out of the woodwork to say that this is all about positioning, about creating good feelings about the brand. There’s a logic to that idea. Quite often brands do feel the need to bolster their popularity and their positivity.

But here’s the question. Has Freederm earned the right to make a spot that is just about branding – with nothing about its actual products? I don’t mean a moral right. They can advertise how they please. 

But broadcasting a branding position without having clear defined products is a risky business. McDonalds runs branding advertising because it also runs advertising about its products. I would argue McDonalds barely has to run product advertising anymore, its products are so well established that all that really needs to be said is the branding.

But can the same be said for Freederm?

That’s a difficult question. When I first saw the spot I would have said absolutely not. But with repetition I think a part of me is growing to accept it. Maybe it’s just that good.