The Next Big Thing... Is it already here?
Samsung has released a new campaign ‘The Next Big Thing’ inattempt to combat the hype around the new iPhone 5. It follows the recent failof a series of Apple ads involving the Apple ‘Geniuses’.
The Samsung ‘The Next Big Thing’ ad features a mock up of a typicalscene outside an Apple store before an iPhone release – deck chairs, longlines, excited nerds. The ad shows people discussing the new features of theiPhone (without specifically stating the word iPhone). Passers by are seenwalking with the latest Samsung Galaxy phone, and people in the line begin totalk, and ask questions. For those of you that haven’t seen it, here it is:
This advertising technique is common amongst rival brands,and can be both very effective and damaging to a brands image. Mentioninganother brand in your advertisement is always a risk, because it puts yourcompetitors brand in the mind of consumers. Unless done well, it can be asource of free advertising for your competitors. Brands often use rivalryadvertising as a means to emphasise the competitor’s flaws. It is a way for onebrand to challenge another.
Another common rivalry is Coke and Pepsi. There are a numberof ads that go back and forth between the two brands, where Coke makes fun ofPepsi, and vice versa. This is one of my favourite ads between Coke and Pepsi:
The Pepsi ad can be seen as more risky than the Samsung one,as it physically shows the competitors products. In the Samsung ad, it simplymakes reference to the line of people, which is assumed to be for the iPhone 5, the Applebrand is never mentioned.
Do you think this type of advertising is effective? or have any other examples.
Is it more risky mentioning your competitor’s brand inyour ad?
I agree it can be quite risky to mention a competitor, as the saying goes, any publicity is good publicity. However i think if you are in second position then it can be useful if done well. The iPhone 5 was already being talked about within the media and so consumers had already been exposed to the brand, so by samsung mentioning them they are not bringing it into people minds as it was already there. And as an iPhone user watching it, i sort of felt a bit silly. Although i love the pepsi add i personally don't think it is as effective, because as a coke drinker i now fell like a soft drink, and I'm going to chose a coke.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! Apple was already in the consumers mind so it wasn't that big of an issue, and feel it was quite an effective way for Samsung to challenge Apple. I am still unsure about the Pepsi ad, it made me laugh, but it does put Coke in peoples head!
DeleteI think Samsung's advertising technique reinforces the lawsuit case between the two companies, direct and brutal.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few interesting quotes I found from this site:http://www.crn.com.au/News/316360,samsung-to-add-iphone-5-to-apple-lawsuit.aspx
-"Samsung expects that the iPhone 5 will infringe the asserted Samsung patents-in-suit in the same way as the other accused iPhone models."
-"The jury also found that Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's asserted patents. Samsung has since vowed it would continue to fight."
I guess it makes sense that their lawsuit battle would impact their method of advertising. Personally, when companies directly target rivals I feel as though they lack creativity and their only option is to attack the competitor. Seems like an easy way out, however I understand these strategies are probably more effective at certain points in a products life cycle, ie. new product launch.
After saying this, I have an iPhone 5 in the mail :D