What’s With the “Look”?

Engaging the viewer is of course a staple in making television commercials. After all, the last thing an advertiser wants to do is alienate possible buyers of his/her product or service. But lately I wonder about that.

Back in the day (I actually hate saying that), commercials had spokespersons. And those announcers had great voices previously groomed from radio experience. And for TV, they were dressed up in suits/dresses just for hawking the product or service directly to your living room.

We don’t have that kind of announcer anymore, although I did see a recent Geico ad where a white-haired spokesperson was closing out the ad, a sort of spoof of the old-fashioned stuff from the ’50s and ’60s.

The reason we no longer have that kind of presentation is because America grew up and became more sophisticated. Instead of those didactic presentations, we have voiceovers explaining what you and I cannot live without. But at least the advertising community now lets us feel like we have authority over our own destiny—to a degree.

Most contemporary shopping is done over the Internet anyway. And the retailers are feeling that deficit. In most areas, anyway. But there are some places in the product/service realm where TV advertising is still viable, and in other areas is even expanding.

Which brings me to the spate of long commercials you now see—those 60- and 90-second spots that border on becoming infomercials: the pharmaceutical ads and the ones for exercise machines, the latter running mostly in the evening hours while you’re practicing your couch potato skills.

Of course, the pharma ads, whose companies have deep pockets for TV air time, really cut into your viewing enjoyment of Law and Order reruns. The first third and last sixth of the run time of these ads tell you how wonderful the drug is, while in between we learn the giant list of all the side effects.

All of the pharma ads have visuals of people going through their daily lives and interacting with friends and family, but a lot of the ads have the actors actually looking directly into the camera. At you.

The above two photos are prime examples here. The left photo is from a Humira ad, promoting their plaque psoriasis medication. The right photo is from a Peloton ad, promoting their exercise machine.

This is the newest version of engaging the viewer: you, too, can do this. You, too, can be one of us (regardless, in the case of the Humira ad, of getting your doctor’s prescription first). Is this inviting, meaning you may need to do this, or is it shaming, meaning you really should do this?

I’ll call this the “look”. And it’s more prevalent in the last year or so. It’s become a psychological tool to make you question your laziness in any given part of your life, be it attending to your retirement savings to your medical or life insurance situation or to your lack of fitness.

The “look” on the actor’s face in the Peloton commercial is practically intimidating.

 

 

Please follow and like us:

Observations on Perception, Part 1

 

This entry will be the first in a secondary series about perception in advertising and how it plays an important part in what makes things sell.

_______

You know, the fashion and cosmetic industries have something going for them that only a few other realms in the ad world are recognizing. But not all of those areas can actually use that something and have it come off nearly as well. It’s that British accent they use to promote their products.

Why is that? What is it that advertisers are trying to do, having their voiceovers done by a Brit? Look at this:

  • The Geico gecko is voiced by actor Jake Wood, a Brit
  • Cottonelle toilet paper is voiced by English actress Cherry Healy
  • Orbit gum is voiced by English-born Vanessa Branch
  • Victoria’s Secret ads voiced by Elizabeth Sastre, also a Brit

According to Brian Wheeler, writing for BBC News in Washington, D.C., fantasy and science fiction on television is best enjoyed by viewers when the predominant accent in those shows is British. He points out that the accent is “sufficiently exotic” to put the mind of the viewer in a different reality.

But if that transports the viewer—at least temporarily (remember, we’re discussing perception here)—to a different reality, how does that thinking translate to TV commercials?

Somehow, in this country anyway, we’ve come to the point of making subliminal judgments about social status, based not so much on what is said, but who says it and just how it is said—what accent is used. British accents, according to polls, are judged to reflect intelligence. That same commercial for Victoria’s Secret just wouldn’t be the same if delivered in either a Mississippi or Boston accent.

French is too provincial and Spanish not high-brow enough. None of this is based on statistics. It just is. Apparently, the fashion and cosmetics industries decided this was the way to go. It works for them. And for them, it translates to viewers that they are getting the best for their money. And that perception translates then to dollars, because that’s all part of the packaging aspect. And they can charge more.

And so Jaguar and Land Rover use British voiceovers. Of course, those are British products. It only makes sense here. But now Lexus is doing it, and that looks and sounds foolish, because Lexus is made by Toyota, a Japanese manufacturer.

Who are they kidding?

 

Please follow and like us: