Every time an ad is created, teams of people examine how it could possibly be misconstrued. These same teams are the people generating the ads, and they must recognize that their ideas could be seen in a different light by others. The following is a short account of my experience in one of these situations.
On a Monday morning, much like any other, our team met in our conference room to discuss the generation of an advertisement for a current campaign we were working on. Because we had done this many times before, we recognized the pitfalls we would encounter along the way. There would be revisions, there would be technological limitations, and perhaps most obviously, there would be social issues.
The advertising campaign for which we were generating the ad was about the relationship people have with their vehicles. After much deliberation, we came to a conclusion. We would take a best friend approach and personify the vehicle as the driver's best friend or even significant other. It was at this moment that we realized all of ways in which these ads might be misinterpreted.
One of the most controversial ads we created was a male treating his car as though it was his significant other. The advertisement itself was both playful and informative, but the color of the car and it's setting raised an issue.
One of our senior copywriters, who has seen issues coming and going, pointed out the problem with the way we were portraying the car. The car was initially a royal blue (predominantly a male color) and it was parked in a garage full of tools. For these reasons, she noted that the car could be seen as a male significant other, and that people would begin to say that this company was a supporter of same-sex institutions, which was something they had no intention of incorporating into their ads.
I silently wondered to myself how such a portrayal could cause a problem before finally asking the designer who had created the ad. This designer told me that he had created the ad turning a blind eye to the gender of the car, but that the masculine setting and gender descriptive color of the car were a major red flag.
After we noted this issue, we met again on Thursday to discuss the problem as well as potential solutions. First, we discussed changing the ad altogether, but decided that the concept and the copy were too strong to waste. Second, we considered changing the setting to something a bit more feminine, perhaps near a garden, and a more feminine color, something of a lighter or pastel shade. However, we decided that that would push standard marriage practices and that should also be avoided. Finally, we decided that we should change the car to a gender-neutral white, and place it in a very generic driveway in order to avoid ascribing any gender to the vehicle.
This was my first real experience in the world of sensitivity in advertising, and it has drastically changed the way I look at the ads people compose. From the setting to the color scheme and even the music used, virtually any aspect can cause a conflict in one form or another. This experience taught me that the best course of action is to avoid specification at all costs, and to try to distance that advertisement from any controversial issue which may arise.
On a Monday morning, much like any other, our team met in our conference room to discuss the generation of an advertisement for a current campaign we were working on. Because we had done this many times before, we recognized the pitfalls we would encounter along the way. There would be revisions, there would be technological limitations, and perhaps most obviously, there would be social issues.
The advertising campaign for which we were generating the ad was about the relationship people have with their vehicles. After much deliberation, we came to a conclusion. We would take a best friend approach and personify the vehicle as the driver's best friend or even significant other. It was at this moment that we realized all of ways in which these ads might be misinterpreted.
One of the most controversial ads we created was a male treating his car as though it was his significant other. The advertisement itself was both playful and informative, but the color of the car and it's setting raised an issue.
One of our senior copywriters, who has seen issues coming and going, pointed out the problem with the way we were portraying the car. The car was initially a royal blue (predominantly a male color) and it was parked in a garage full of tools. For these reasons, she noted that the car could be seen as a male significant other, and that people would begin to say that this company was a supporter of same-sex institutions, which was something they had no intention of incorporating into their ads.
I silently wondered to myself how such a portrayal could cause a problem before finally asking the designer who had created the ad. This designer told me that he had created the ad turning a blind eye to the gender of the car, but that the masculine setting and gender descriptive color of the car were a major red flag.
After we noted this issue, we met again on Thursday to discuss the problem as well as potential solutions. First, we discussed changing the ad altogether, but decided that the concept and the copy were too strong to waste. Second, we considered changing the setting to something a bit more feminine, perhaps near a garden, and a more feminine color, something of a lighter or pastel shade. However, we decided that that would push standard marriage practices and that should also be avoided. Finally, we decided that we should change the car to a gender-neutral white, and place it in a very generic driveway in order to avoid ascribing any gender to the vehicle.
This was my first real experience in the world of sensitivity in advertising, and it has drastically changed the way I look at the ads people compose. From the setting to the color scheme and even the music used, virtually any aspect can cause a conflict in one form or another. This experience taught me that the best course of action is to avoid specification at all costs, and to try to distance that advertisement from any controversial issue which may arise.
Having worked in an ad agency, I can very well relate to the whole scene. It used to be a common sight in conference room at my office back in India. The worse of all is when the ideas are presented to the client. They have a completely different perspective and most of the times have no taste or sense of creativity! (pardon me for my language). But, that is a bitter truth.
ReplyDelete