Great print ads combine a compelling visual, often a great headline, and are always memorable. It’s hard to define genius in this context but you know it when you see it. These days, many marketers and advertisers want the messaging to be simple. They want it instantly understood. No subtleties. Nothing vague. Nothing thought provoking. Nothing funny. At times, that can make sense but ads void of personality don’t distinguish your brand from any other. There’s a cliché that says, “you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.” If you want your brand to stand out, you have to combat the conventional. Here’s how.
You don’t need to be familiar with Van Gogh to understand and appreciate this. These lenses are so good they clear up the painting itself. We’ve all seen television commercials showing how a particular brand of sunglasses or lens puts everything into better focus. This ad, created in France, takes it an impossible step further. It’s a great example of exaggeration. You are actually allowed to do that.
This only takes a second to kick in. It adjusts an everyday object to fit (literally) with the brand. This German ad only has two words and a logo but manages to communicate everything you really need to know. The only fault we find here is that there’s no website or phone number. You could make the argument that in our “search in seconds” world, those things are superfluous.
A perfect product metaphor. Has Volkswagen ever created a bad ad? We’ve never seen one.
Despite the use of English this was created in Spain. Someone at the agency may have seen a bunch of ants crawling all over something sweet. Take a real life visual and adjust accordingly to fit your product.
Before you digest the creative, think about the approach. Pedigree isn’t selling dog food here. They are selling the reason you buy dog food.
This was created by an agency in Belgium. Generally speaking, you wouldn’t include a competitor in your own ad. Here, it definitely works. And for those who might be wondering, using a competitor’s logo in your own ad for comparative purposes is not trademark infringement.