Chinese, Japanese, Battameez.......oh God!

Obviously the dad loves his son. So what does he do when he comes home from a trip? Buys him a cool mobile ofcourse! And from then on things go downhill for the daddy dearest cause the son is lost in the world of wireless fantasy with a myriad things to do. Its a good story to build an ad around. Unfortunately, the ad had something else in the offing. They wanted to show that the dad is constantly battling the mobile, vying for the attention of his son. And how do they show this? By having the head of the dad in a suitcase, which constantly peeps out to reach out to his and then finally just pops out to fall at his feet, which he conveniently chooses to ignore.


I just could not believe that this was a Moto ad. I have always had a high regard for them. Their positioning is always very distinct. Classy, stylish, contemporary and young. The 'Hello Moto' at the end of the ads are just perfect, like a fab dessert to finish off a nice dinner. And this positioning has been consistent across all Moto ads. The Razr ad where the room folds into a mobile, the one where the girl with the tight pants slips the Moto into her back pocket, the couple fighting in the tube, the Moto Music with Abhishek. All suave, all classy. But why in the name of the lord this new one? Yeah, I understand this is a phone for the young and for the masses. Not a very upmarket model which will sell only by thousands. All fine with the targeting and positioning. But the communication!!??

We had a presentation from Motorola in college. The head of marketing or thereabouts had come down to explain the philosophy of Moto and the opportunities that were available to join them. And he was quite expecting this question to pop up. His blanket statement was that "Hey as long as my ads are creating a buzz, positive or negative, I am home."

This is where I don't agree to his logic. Ads should be positively reinforcing the brand identity. Even if it is a new product, like in this case, targeting a whole new segment of customers, the message should be positive. Agreed that a Mika pulling over Rakhi Sawant to land a full blown kiss will do wonders for her career, that a 'Balbir Pasha ko AIDS hoga kya?' would work to bring the message out to the public, but I am not so sure the same logic would hold true to products. No viewer would be thrilled to see a head popping out in a ad. Its disgusting to see such things. I recall India Today long ago had carried a front page picture of a Taliban soldier carrying a chopped off head by the hair. Most of the readers wrote in very strongly to the editor condemning display of such gory scenes. The main issue, of people being treated like animals and butchered by the minute was not talked about. The style of information dissemination became more important than the information itself.

So, when the marketing manger talks about not caring about the direction of the buzz being created, it shows a certain levels of marketing immaturity from the company. The effectiveness of an ad campaign is measured by multiplying the 'reach, frequency and impact' of the ads. And this is where to measure marketing impact, the quality of impact should be considered as an additional dimension along with the force of the impact. How are the sales patterns changing after such a campaign? What would be the relative difference in numbers when the ad had a positive buzz and when it had a negative buzz? Do the Digen Vermas add to the brand equity or the dropping heads do? I am sure that the Lowes, the McCann Ericssons, the Ogilvies and the Leos of the world have more intelligent things to say about this, but I think its something worth mulling over for marketers around the world.

Whats your take?