Ad Review (Print) - Snickers

Recently, an otherwise dormant print ad world was rejuvenated, thanks to a clever ad campaign by Snickers. The campaign effectuated rounds of feedback, arguments and counter-arguments, a much needed boost to the old school ad channel. The ad series was published in a sports illustrated swim suit edition.

The campaign, through its series of ads  depicted professionals messing up at their work due to hunger and its effects. The hunger snack bar segment has been a space strongly held by Snickers and this series only reinforces that positioning, quite convincingly.

In one such ad, an intentionally flawed photo-shopped picture, showing a swimsuit model is shown with a strange  hand on her shoulder with no sign of the body of the person. The funny double twinkles in the model's eyes (which may not be as obviously visible as the hand, unless the picture is zoomed in) and a disaster 'navel' placement, clearly forms a visual message of blunders at retouching work, while the ad copy closes the ad with a witty message solving the puzzle about the blunder.

These visual mistakes immediately attract the viewer's attention and the textual message in the ad copy closes the story by squarely blaming the editing professional's hunger behind this editing disaster. Hence, the message is delivered home convincingly cleverly riding on humour without missing the objective of the ad.

This campaign is a clutter breaking effort, especially making a mark in print ad channel, which some critics are dubbing as a dead space.

Snickers blasts in itself strongly in the hunger killing candy bar segment with this ad, also going a step beyond from depicting irritated people due to hunger to dire consequences of hunger, especially at work. The ad packs punch in humour as well as relevance for the brand in terms of messaging and connect and is a 'hit'.

WhatsApp and millenials - 'Cause'-marketing and its effect

Social relevance and cause championship are the new buzzwords for brands, especially of greater importance  while trying to win over millennials.

Championing social causes has become a compulsory part of marketing to keep brands relevant and even ahead of the competition. Owning a 'social space' is as important as owning a 'mind-space' for a holistic marketing plan.

Millenials are quick to recognize this aspect about brands and are more likely to accept, own and flaunt brands which put them at the forefront of social causes.

Obviously, brands that have millenials as their major and strongest customers as well as critics, are doing everything to remain ahead of the curved and be the favourites of their TG.

WhatsApp, now owned by Facebook, recently revamped their emoji offerings for chat, with a host of new options, taking a lead on the matter of equality in races and sexual orientation. Recently it added options to choose from a fixed set of colours of skin for certain emojis, hence taking a race neutral stand, substituting the 'white-only' option they had earlier. This was hailed as a remarkable step and was much talked about. The move, which may have appeared as a small step initially, invoked a wider debate and sensitized the issue of colour and segregation based on it. Millenials loved the move and appreciated WhatsApp for its bold initiative.


 Soon after, WhatsApp has gone ahead and added emojis with same sex couples, with and without children. This is another bold move especially at a time when the matter of LGBT rights has gained much attention. WhatsApp's recognition of this community's rights in a billion people's group by placing these new emojis along with the earlier ones, asserts it's support for the community.

Millenials have embraced this move with great spirits and have shown their love for WhatsApp on various online portals. WhatsApp, with this small but bold step has managed to be ahead of the curve in terms of association with the social cause of fighting for equality irrespective of race, colour and sexual orientation.

Millenials love to flaunt their association but it is rarely mindless. The method behind this madness is a mix of contrasts - self-indulgence balanced with joy of 'giving back', brand loyalty meshed with curiosity for newer brands, ambitious yet conscience-driven goals and most of all, openness to new ideas while having beliefs and opinions of self.

Brands generally need to solve these complex contrasting equations in order to strike a chord with millenials, but social cause championing is one of the reliable methods to break clutter and be their BFF. WhatsApp has achieved it wonderfully with its subtle yet strong move to assert it's support for equality.

Celebrity endorsement - Never 'just do it' !

Nike and its tumultuous history with its brand ambassadors is a real case study. After Tiger Woods, Oscar Pistorious, Lance Armstrong, and very recently , it is now the Tennis sensation Maria Sharapova who has given a headache to Nike and heartache to her fans world wide.

Nike recently terminated its contract with Manny Pacquaio after what they termed as his 'abhorrent' comments on LGBT community.
In the latest round of strained relationships with its brand ambassadors, Nike this week severed ties with the 28 year old five times grand-slam champion Maria Sharapova after her shocking revelation of having been  tested positively for a banned substance - meldonium at Australian open earlier this year.

Back home, Snapdeal had to bear the brunt for its brand ambassador Amir Khan's comment on the intolerance issue in the country which took a political turn.

Such incidents demonstrate the risks that brands are exposed to, while nominating a brand ambassador. While having a celebrity brand ambassador is almost a norm and not a choice in several industries and product categories, the risks of associating with a celebrity are as high as the reward.

Obviously, any such association demands a great deal of focus on personality alignment between the brand and the prospective ambassador, an important but grossly ignored concept.

It is imperative to mention here that the celebrity personality in today's highly networked truly global world is no more only about how they do their job, like  modeling, acting or sports etc, but also their social, political and cultural views and inclinations. Again, while these are more public in nature, due diligence is of utmost importance about their personal lives. Tiger woods' and Oscar Pistorious' cases testify this argument.

Brand managers blindly expect the positive  personality rub-off from the celebrity to their brands without taking into consideration a host of other factors that must be looked into.

Some of the important factors are -
# The individual and the collective personality of the celebrity
# The desired brand image of the product
# The synergy between the first two personalities
# The overlaps and counter-laps between the endorser and product personality

While the first two factors are extremely important to derive at what are we dealing with in terms of possible association between two personalities, the third factor helps in understanding whether or not there is a broad alignment between the product and the celebrity. However, it is most often the fourth factor which is blatantly ignored, and often to one's own peril.


The counter laps or the points/occurrence/frequency of contrasts between the two personalities(the endorser and the product) must be closely researched and debated before closing a brand endorsement decision. The most important decision here is what aspects of the celebrity's personality may not/are not - align/aligned, with the core brand personality and its desired brand image.

Finally, a brand endorsement is a very expensive decision for any marketing manager and a thorough due diligence is not a choice but a compulsion to avoid foot in mouth situations that hurt the brand and the company. This may very well help in avoiding some issues altogether while mitigate ill-effects of others.