I always ask clients where their intended audience will interact with the media when we embark on a new project.
It’s important to understand to what degree, and in what frame of mind, the audience will be when they view or listen to the content. It’s nuance, but every bit of insight is useful when starting a dialogue with an audience.
I was in the CityMD waiting room the other day and the following two commercials came on the television in succession. it made me consider this concept…more below after viewing (try watching without sound).
First off, as a bit of an aside, the televisions were screening in what appeared to be 60i or some sort of hyper-reality. It made the film that was on, Love Actually, albeit a glorified Lifetime movie of the week, filled with world class actors and Hollywood stars, appear like, well, a Lifetime movie of the week. This, it dawned on me, was the perfect setting for sympathy pleas.
The ASPCA commercial is from a brand that needs no introduction. Their call letters are practically synonymous with images of neglected pets. I’m going to cut to the chase and put aside any and all sympathies I have for animals and animal welfare–this is about the media, not what is portrayed but how, where, and when it is portrayed. The ASPCA spot is filled with sorrowful and shivering, malnourished animals. Neglect, as I said, is what comes to mind. The commercial is mostly handheld camera, documentary style, interspersed with brightly lit, talking heads that are cropped too tightly. The spot runs about 3 minutes, or the approximate length of one of the crane shots in Love Actually. A lot of these shots make me think, “why isn’t the person filming this or talking about this rescuing these animals instead of asking me?” Seems like time is of the essence but this is sure taking a long time.
The World Wildlife Federation, is a brand with less of a television presence, but the brand is probably equally well-known. The fight for animal rights takes a different voice here. This particular spot features polar bears, a barren, hard to reach Arctic landscape, and higher production value shots that are longer lens, more stable, and even aerial. Here, I feel like they might need money, if for nothing else then to travel to this out of the way location.
It’s interesting how the lower production value model makes me feel like less inclined to give than the higher production value spot. Here are two different commercials, from two different brands, that are done completely differently, but both with the same objective: to raise money for their organization through donations.
The ASPCA clearly plays on sympathy, and more specifically on an audience that feels sorry for themselves. The theory presumably is that if you feel sorry for yourself, you may feel better by feeling even more sorry for another. The WWF spot is a bit more nuanced. In a way it offers the idea that that the entire environment is changing; today it’s the polar bears, but tomorrow it could be you. But really the WWF and ASPCA spots play on the same audience dynamics. The where and when of the ads are the same. They both screen around the holiday time, during the afternoon, when someone is home by themselves watching television–or in the waiting room at an ER. Ugh, how depressing. It just makes me want to do good (content).