"…so to summarise I believe the idea for Cadbury's Gorilla (and this is subjective and not the law, if you can support your idea then it’s valid – that’s the beauty of advertising analysis) is that Cadbury's are more generous with their milk content than any other chocloate bar, therefore they use that generosity in their advertising by giving the public 90 seconds of entertainment. In order to execute this, the advertising is be as enjoyable as eating chocolate so to have a gorilla drumming to Phil Collins is not only random but funny and therefore enjoyable. The rationale for this being that Cadbury's Dairy Milk has reached a peak in terms of awareness, everyone knows it exists, therefore there isn't a need for a hard sell but to create an emotional affinity with the product, to have positive values attributed to the product. Therefore this ad is there to entertain and engage audiences with Cadbury Dairy Milk via a completley different TV advertising model - almost branded content if you will (that's a different post)."
Cadbury’s TV Commercial featuring the drum playing gorilla is a wonderful, and now much awarded piece of creative. But it’s not perfect advertising by a long shot.
1) It grabs attention. Tick.
2) It’s worth watching, over and over. Tick.
3) People do realise it is for Cadbury. Tick. The brand is far from being the star but the commercial creates tension “what’s this all about ?” which makes people look for the brand, and fortunately Cadbury do own a distinctive asset in the colour purple (shown in the background behind the Gorilla). So the branding does work, at least in Cadbury dominant countries like the UK, Australia and New Zealand. It would be far less effective elsewhere.
4) It refreshes and/or builds appropriate memory structures that make the brand easier to come to mind of be noticed in buying situations. Ahh, no. This is the commercial’s BIG weakness. It builds a link between Cadbury and the Gorilla, and few of us think of gorillas when in potential chocolate buying situations. Perhaps today when people think of gorillas (e.g. at the zoo) they are more likely to think of eating a Cadbury chocolate bar but that’s going to make a trivial effect on sales.
That’s why the TV commercial has not been a roaring sales success. It’s played its little part in helping Cadbury recover from the lows of its salmonella contamination but the brand was already bouncing back before ‘the Gorilla Ad’.
So what Cadbury needs to do is get its gorilla, a distinctive asset they now own, close to purchase situations. And I now see that they are - see below for a photo from my local supermarket. The competition is just an excuse to get the gorilla into a prominent position close to the chocolate display (or at least I hope the marketers realise this is the important objective).
PS If anyone tells you that the Gorilla ad works for the brand because it taps the brand’s core essence of joy run from the psychobabble."
People as a rule don’t mind being advertised to, we’ll freely sit in a pub and chat about fantastic Guinness commercials, but we do mind being interrupted by 30 seconds of stuff not fit for our u-bends. Engaging with someone’s emotions in a fresh way is the key. But this doesn’t mean we have to create something bizarre and entirely new every time:
It’s often about the context you place something in. The following advert transposes a rather average conversation about mobile phone bills into a super-villain cartoon, which suddenly (with the addition of the smartest written dialogue around) into something spectacular:
The now legendary Dunlop commercial is just a road test for tyres advert, but rather than using crash test dummies, test tracks and oil slicks the viewer is taken to a very surreal place indeed.
We all love to post-rationalize adverts and in our search for the secret formula all we are doing is creating formulas which are ultimately counterproductive to the very thing that makes a great ad great – how different it is.