Advertising
Example 1. The two ads are both targeted towards women and appeared in fashion magazines. The visuals for this ad reflect the transition from prickly to smooth, which mirrors the copy. The ad was placed in Glamour, which has a more lifestyle approach, so the food metaphors seem apropos for the audience. The ad is a bit disjointed, in that the image is a bit sloppy and the metaphors in the text seem weak, like the allusion to spaghetti straps, which makes sense and at the same time is a clumsy attempt to tie food into this. All told, however, the ad engages the audience, attempts to be clever, and the visual should catch the attention of readers.
Ad "B" was placed in Cosmo, which skews younger and more strictly fashion-oriented, but the copy and visuals do not seem congruent with that. The layout of the ad is the same as with "A," but the image is not striking. It is all white, and is much blander. The visual does not convey the sense of transition that the visual in "A" does. Neither does the copy. It is not even attempting to be clever, so there is nothing to catch the eye or attention of the target market. The copy conveys the product benefit, but without the benefit of cleverness or a catchy visual, it seems reasonable to think that "B" is simply too conservative for its publication. For these reasons, "A" should have tested better.
Example 2.
The first ad "A" for the Hyundai Sonata is a relatively dry ad. The copy simply recounts the features of the product, without any link to the customer, so there is simply no meaningful customer engagement with this. The tagline is an allusion to the visual, where the car is driving past a movie theatre with a sequel name on its marquee. Arguably, this takes the eye away from the car, and the tagline reinforces that. Despite the copy touting the re-design of this car, the layout of the visual takes your eyes away from the car, minimizing the reader's ability to evaluate the re-design. This ad seems a little too soft, and conventional for the Men's Health demo, and without any lifestyle story to sell, the ad simply does not...
This can be effective, especially if buyers often compare these two vehicles. The visual focuses on the car more, and the crash test visual (and accompanying copy) tell of a buyer that is probably transporting a family, and for whom this is a major reason not to buy the competitor's vehicle. The ad is not great, as it doesn't really sell the Subaru so much as trash the Ford, but it is still more effective than the marquee Hyundai ad that does not engage with the reader and goes out of its way to avoid the reader looking at the re-design, supposedly that vehicle's selling point. "B" is better. The placement is an interesting dynamic -- Bon Appetit is not a "men's" magazine, so the reach would be lower for the Subaru ad, but the ad itself is probably more effective with men. I think "B" would have tested better.
Example 3.
This set has two different products, with two different demos entirely. Thus, the question "which ad performed better among women" is irrelevant. Among all women, probably the one with the kid, but that is not what is important. What is important is which ad performed better among the women it is targeting. In that, these are both effective ads. The "A" ad is in Bon Appetit, and is clearly targeted towards that market, with the emphasis on design and style. But this is not an ad targeted at "all women" or even just "women." It is actually more of a gender-neutral ad targeted at the wealthier, stylish niche that Bon Appetit serves. Given that Better Homes and Gardens has almost an entirely different demo, and the products are not the same either, this set is of two ads that probably should not be paired together. The one with the child is effective for its publication, but would not be all that effective in Bon Appetit, and the same can be said for the Andersen ad. The "B" ad has a visual that immediately relates to the audience before conveying the product benefits, but so does the "A" ad, which uses the…
