Interesting post by Paul Isakson called “Why weird & wonderful often works”. He suggests that many brands are simply looking to get their fans (addicts) to think about them for a micro-second, whereupon, zombielike, the viewer will seek the relevant product out at their earliest convenience. And I agree with him. For relatively low-cost addictive items like cigarettes, fast food and pop. Not so much for cars, vacation destinations and other high ticket items.

Anyway, he says this is the logic behind viral efforts like Crispin’s Burger King stuff. The wackier the better in that they’re out to fire up as many conversations as possible–even saying you hate one of the ads within earshot of someone addicted to one of these products can set them off.
Patrick at TheNextWeb had similar suggestions about Microsoft’s “no such thing as bad publicity” approach to advertising.

Of course there have always been brands that made an effort and those that has always been the case. In “Hey Whipple, Squeeze This” Luke Sullivan made the case that this dichotomy began at the dawn of modern advertising. Bill Bernbach’s seminal ads for Volkswagon were engaging, endearing and entertaining. At the same time, multinationals began their onslaught of inane, irritating and interrupting ads for parity products like Charmin. Both stuck in consumer’s minds. One approach sucks less.

I’m not much of a Skittles eater myself. I gave it up in grade 7, almost a quarter century ago. But these ads are so damn funny I’m going to blog about them. And I’m going to tell people about them too. And they’re going to watch them and tell more people about them.

All this to say that the next frontier for big media advertising better be a calculated effort to entertain me. The best ads have always been viral–now we just spread them faster. I haven’t owned an actual television in 6 years, but Skittles have got me looking for their ads on youtube. Beat that.

paul.isakson: Why Weird & Wonderful Often Works.