“Can we have a generic look?”
“Can we have a generic headline?”
What does that mean? Do we not have a USP? There is, at the very least, a logo on this ad somewhere…
Remember the generic branding of the 80s? The whole idea was that if consumers didn’t have to pay for advertising, they’d save on costs, and that certain products like BEANS, or BEER, or TUNA IN WATER, or CHOCOLATE CAKE MIX, were all basically the same in terms of their so-called generic contents.
A generic product does not have a logo on it and almost always has a black typeface on a white background. Many foods were available as ‘generic’ in the 1980s. They have now been replaced by house brands, which are non-marketed brands that mimic the name brand items.
But consumers didn’t like it. They wanted ‘Planters Peanuts’. They wanted to have a ‘Coke and a Smile’, not a COLA. They wanted ‘Clorox’, not BLEACH. They wanted ‘Evian’, not MINERAL WATER. (Insert your own examples here.)
Even drugs, like Tylenol, or Advil were their own brands – although one could argue that the molecular makeup of these items were basically still the same.
Most ironically of all was that the generic look was incredibly recognisable and created amazing cut-through.
When every can of soup in the aisle is coloured red or yellow, and then you have a generic soup that just says SOUP on it in Helvetica black, visually, it will pop right off the shelf.
The prices were good too.
Still, consumers didn’t buy it. They reached for the brands they knew. The ones with the catchy jingle. The ones with the special ingredients. The ones with a USP.
Consumers drive demand, and they’re always willing to pay for the brands they love. The brand killed ‘generic’.
So too is the case in the office. The ad/work simply must start from the product, or at least an audience insight that links to the product. There’s no way around it. And there’s no such thing as ‘generic’, so please stop using that word.
I’d be a lot happier making the logo bigger – at least that’s about the brand.
Alexander remembers that even his dog didn’t like generic DOG FOOD.
Even drugs, like Tylenol, or Advil were their own brands – although one could argue that the molecular makeup of these items were basically still the same.
Most ironically of all was that the generic look was incredibly recognisable and created amazing cut-through.
When every can of soup in the aisle is coloured red or yellow, and then you have a generic soup that just says SOUP on it in Helvetica black, visually, it will pop right off the shelf.
The prices were good too.
Still, consumers didn’t buy it. They reached for the brands they knew. The ones with the catchy jingle. The ones with the special ingredients. The ones with a USP.
Consumers drive demand, and they’re always willing to pay for the brands they love. The brand killed ‘generic’.
So too is the case in the office. The ad/work simply must start from the product, or at least an audience insight that links to the product. There’s no way around it. And there’s no such thing as ‘generic’, so please stop using that word.
I’d be a lot happier making the logo bigger – at least that’s about the brand.
Alexander remembers that even his dog didn’t like generic DOG FOOD.
No comments:
Post a Comment