Stage 1 Controversial advertising

Red Bull

What were the objectives of the advertisement (from the brand’s perspective)?

 

To give people the sense that extra energy and drive provided by their product can help consumers overcome their inner struggles and inferiority. They paint their comic character as a loser who happens to be in the wrong place, under bird droppings, who is able to transform into a dominant person who is defecating on the inferior bird.

 

Who was the intended audience?

 

The intended audience is younger males, who are lacking the confidence to perceive positively of themselves.

 

Why did the brand choose a controversial approach?

 

The brand saw caffeine as an energy booster. Giving you a new ‘power’ and ‘energy’, which is parallel to that of a super power. Thus their advertising campaign ‘Red Bull gives you wings’ uses this Super human approach to resonate with users. Its not saying its super human, it suggests you can do things that you didn’t know you could. They didn’t aim for the advertisement to be controversial but they did aim to be attention grabbing. From its launch in 1984, Red Bull GmbH, has consistently marketed its product as ‘special.’ The campaign can only be seen to have been successful when one considers it has achieved sales of 5.9 billion cans of its product in 2015. ( http://energydrink-us.redbull.com/company )

 

Is the advertisement effective?

 

Red Bull developed their ‘Red Bull gives you wings’ as part of an overall marketing strategy incorporating partnerships with formula 1 racing, aerobatic flying, motor sport, surfing and other extreme sports. The brand grew strongly on the back of this strategy. However claiming that Red Bull ‘gives you wings’ was challenged in a legal sense because after years of drinking Red Bull consumers did not physically grow wings.

 

How would you improve the advertisement?

 

You could have the same depictions, but within a thought bubble. Thus making it ‘imaginary’ not ‘real’. I believe the comic style and message that it helps consumers of the product to push the boundaries of normal, the message your trying to portray to consumers. Changing the add so it happens in a thought bubble the advertisement achieves its aim.

 

Based on the trade press article, what was the effect of the controversy and how

could this impact the brand?

 

The lawsuit resulting in having to pay US $13 mill in damages, demands a change in the campaign. When weighed against the benifets of the campaign which saw sales increase from $2,883 mill to $4,550 mill from 2014 to 2015. The appropriate action is to modify the campaign rather than abandon the campaign entirely.

 

WorkSafe

What were the objectives of the advertisement (from the brand’s perspective)?

 

The objectives of the add are to educate employers that new employees need good induction training to reduce their risk of injury. The add further, the adds are challenging new employees to ask questions in their new workplace because the consequences of their ignorance and unwillingness to challenge can be disastrous.

 

Who was the intended audience?

 

I believe the target audience for the campaign were primarily new employees and employers.

 

Why did the brand choose a controversial approach?

 

The strategy adopted in this campaign is an extension of several other Australian campaigns such as the ‘grim reaper’ and ‘TAC road safety. They were trying to shock their audience to gain attention and promote action.

 

Is the advertisement effective?

 

It is reasonable to challenge this campaign because the emphasis is on what not to do rather than one should do. The campaign was effective in raising people’s concern but its effectiveness can be challenged because of the down playing of appropriate strategies.

 

How would you improve the advertisement?

 

Rather than broadening the campaign to a variety of industries parallel examples demonstrating appropriate strategies for new employees and induction processes for employers would strengthen the positive messages.

 

Based on the trade press article, what was the effect of the controversy and how

could this impact the brand?

 

The advertising campaign resulted in broad discussion in the media about the campaign with the effect that WorkSafe were granted the opportunity to elaborate on the message. Hence strengthen the positive sides of the message. One could say that the campaign was deliberately designed to create controversy, it could be classified as confrontationally marketing.

New Work Safety Ads from Australia

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/08/red-bull-does-not-give-you-wings-company-settles-us13mil-lawsuit-over-false

Top Selling Energy Drink Brands

http://energydrink-us.redbull.com/company

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s