this is next at The 2010 Presidentiables Blog
we think the mar roxas brand image may have taken a nasty one – to that of an angry and nasty man and we have the pictures to prove that. is it this “angry and nasty man” brand character that has forced roxas to air his latest tv ad, “padyakitos”. one of the intent of this ad to drive up mar roxas’ cuteness and soften his image. we think that has failed in more ways but these pictures are the symptoms on why he needed anger management therapy:
we have written in this blog about the last picture where we thought the brand character that came out from this ad is one of an angry and combative man, not at all endearing and most specially fatally wrong given the “putang ina” incident. this ad was the first released after that incident.
watch the ad again and you will see that from start to finish, mar roxas had anger lines on his forehead. the clenched fist at the end added to the angry and combative brand character.
mar roxas takes anger management therapy, shows it in his latetst ad, “payakitos” tv ad but pedals to advertising mediocrity
the title of the commercial is “padyakitos” referring to the very young, i would say tween age boy who is is on the padyak, the manual run tricycle. the title of the ad will not be seen by viewers but the title itself defines the path to advertising mediocrity this ad has pedaled mar roxas into.
it’s a title that is trying to be cute. we don’t know if “padyakitos” is a real term used by real pinoys, but choosing this title over the message of the ad tells you the ad is trying too hard to look cute and endearing.
this ad fails in many ways and we think we know the key reasons why this ad has led mar roxas to come up with an ad that we think will not enhance his image but will give him a new definition to his brand image – mediocrity.
we think mar roxas has been led to this kind of ad for right reasons but its execution was flawed. they concocted this ad to address the following key “crisis points”:
- the need to “soften” mar roxas’ brand image. they probably think mar roxas’ image has taken an “ass hole” image coming from his “senator putang ina” (read posts on this one here in 2011 presidentiables) incident and the unabashed display of uncontrolled anger in many occassions. they probably wanted to show in this ad that mar roxas is cute, likeable and yes he has been through anger management therapy.
- this one is one of the mortal sins admen and clients seem to commit all the time - they fell madly in love with previous ads that worked. roxas’ success into senatorial rock star status was his “mr. palengke” tv ad . they fell in love with that ad and they were obsessed with duplicating that success so they chose to graduate roxas from the palengke to the tricycle. this ad is still in the palengke area, but moved from inside the palengke to the outside, now riding a padyak. roxas wanted to replace the “mr. palengke” to “mr. padyak”.
- oh, and yes, roxas has defined the advertising strategy for his campaign and they wanted to make sure that is also delivered.
the above are all good and legitimate advertising needs that they need to fix. 2010 presidentiables.wordpress in the posts here in fact has warned senator roxas that his “senator putang ina” image will need to be fixed, but the execution of that need we think is faulty.
in fact the biggest error of this padyakitos tv ad is it is too executional and not strategic at all. not only is the ad too executional, their execution of that intent has made it into a hodge-podge of confusing elements, ginawang chop-suey yung ad.
we think the ad suffered a dramatic failure when the ad was not strategic at all, too executional and the executions were very poorly done. that is a recipe for advertising mediocrity and a sure hit WAWAM!
more on this on the next post.
read about “senator mar putang ina roxas” here: http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/?s=putang+ina
this is the lastest tv ad for mar roxas. we see mar roxas in the likely scenario of riding a padyak tricycle for no reason, then carrying on a conversation with young children.
mar roxas just pedaled himself to mediocrity. that is next here in 2011 presidentiables.
someone had sent us the link for mar roxas’ “murang gamot” (cheap medicine) tvc we mentioned in this blog. no, it’s not his “pagmumura sa rally” (cursing at the rally) video that we were given but his commercial.
there is no question – the cost of medicine in this country is just too expensive. we think the cost on its own is just too high and what makes the situation worse is that around 92% of the country’ population belong to the poor, those belonging to the DE and soci-eco class. high cost of medicine and very low to no wages is a deadly combination, and that is literal.
that is not the problem in this ad. in fact high cost of medicine is to many of the people a real economic problem. the problem is on why air this ad now.
the most recent history on mar roxas is his “putang ina” magic words at the rally. add to that his privilege speech at the senate floor saying he will not apologize for it.
the correct tactical ad would have been an ad to soften mar roxas’ brand image to remove the sting of the “putang ina” incident. they should have worked on making amends to the public in an indirect way by portraying roxas as a kind hearted and decent man, not the kanto-boy (hoodlum) image that sprang up with his “putang ina” words.
the executional error that we see in this ad is the brand character he has taken in this ad. they have made mar roxas appear as too strong, combative and even angry, images that contribute to the kanto-boy image that came up in that rally.
look at his facial expression in this ad – mar roxas had his forehead showing anger lines and he had two of his hands clenched, like in a boxing/fighting stance. the directorial intent in this kind of stance is to show that mar roxas is in for a fight against the high cost of medicine. but that also means the ”putang ina” words he said during the rally fits exactly right into that fighting stance. the “putang ina” words is a match to the imagery he showed in this tv spot.
our view is that roxas needs to do a fix on his “putang ina” image. he does not have to apologize for it, but he needs to build another image that negates or “corrects” what has been done. we can be wrong about that being an issue among voters but if i was with the roxas team, i would immediately conduct consumer research to find out if his “putang ina” words made an impact on roxas’ brand image.
however, even if it did not, i would still do the “softer, decent” tactical campaign ad for roxas just to be on the safe side. this is to make sure roxas’ brand image is not polarizing. a brand that is polarizing can go either way, depending on the stimulus that appears to ignite it.
view video of mar roxas “putang ina” incident: http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/mar-roxas-senator-putang-ina-video-gallery/
posts on mar roxas’ “putang ina” : http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/mar-roxas-questions-that-need-to-be-answered/
senator mar roxas, presidentiable aired a new tvc which i saw last night. this one is talking about his efforts on lowering the cost of medicines for the poor.
i have seen the tvc only once and we think that while this ad is consistent with what appears to be an over-all strategy they have adapted for mar roxas’ brand building campaign, this particular ad has a key executional error in it.
aside from the executional error, i think the roxas campaign is committing a strategic blunder in pursuing this line of strategy now. roxas’ advertising campaign strategy seem to have purposedly turned a blind eye on realities.
this is next in 2010 presidentiables. we need to see the tv ad a few more times before we commit to a full analysis. we will also be waiting for the ad to be posted in you tube for posting here.
or – would the mar roxas campaign handlers email to me a soft copy?
first posted in WAWAM! on june 22, 2008 : http://the-wawam-file.blogspot.com/search/label/mar%20roxas
senator mar roxas in this tide detergent commercial did not mention the tide brand name even once. he also did not touch the product and and in fact his only interaction with tide was when he pointed to the price discount on the pack.
is it a tide detergent tv commercial? hell, yeah! is it a product endorsement tv ad by the nationally elected senator? hell, yeah!
there is no mistaking – mr. palengke appeared in the tide commercial and is endorsing the product. why else would you display such huge bags of tide, standing up with the tide logo clearly seen? i don’t think you will ever see any store in the palengke where they display tide that way and certainly not in front of the store where it contains nothing but giant tide packs. the way tide was displayed and the shelf itself is simply not done in the palengkes.
this is not tide’s brandsell advertising. in the world of p&g advertising, this is considered as a tactical value advertising. it’s meant to sell tide’s large packs and promote big purchases among consumers in the palengke.
what? wait a minute. mr. palengke in a palengke promoting big pack purchases? something is very wrong about that!
first of all, detergent purchase habits says most consumers buy small packs for lower cash outlay. also, the palengke is where most DE and some lower C socio-eco users go to for their daily needs, and most of them go to the palengkes very often because they do no have the money to buy in bulk, thus the consumer practice is small price but more frequent purchases.
and the above is where we move in to a new topic – this is not just a product endorsement ad, it is actually a political campaign ad.
promoting large priced purchases for bulk detergent products is simply alien to the palengke goers. it’s consumers who go to supermarkets who do that, but hardly is that legitimate purchasing habit for those who shop in palengkes. very few palengke goers can afford large pack purchases, in fact it is in the palengke where you can buy literally a spoonful of anything, placed in small plastic bags. you can actually buy condiments and cooking needs in small plastic bags good for one cooking. for an advertising purist, you can argue this commercial is off strategy.
the fact that the mr. palengke, senator mar roxas commercial is situated in a palengke means only one thing – it’s a political ad.
but p&g is not foolish. they will not intentionally and knowingly air an off strategy commercial. being off strategy in p&g is a mortal sin that will get you fired the next minute you say it. i am certain they have done extensive consumer research on this tv commercial – from the choice of the talent to a full blown advertising pre-airing test and i bet they found that while this commercial is meant to be tactical, it has powerful brandsell characteristics.
is it a WAWAM!? it’s not entirely a WAWAM! for tide detergent. mr. palengke has excellent credentials and a huge following. it’s also not a WAWAM! for senator mr. roxas. he is getting national tv exposure highly consistent with his positioning as the mr. palengke. and for free! the media money behind it is being paid for by p&g.
again, is it a WAWAM!?
yes, it’s a WAWAM! for the filipino people and it’s soul. we can rationalize it all we want. we can take it down to technicalities like no brand name was said, but the fact remains, like judas, several pieces of silver worth millions of pesos in talent fee was exchanged for integrity, pride, honesty and honor in a nationally elected public office.
first posted in WAWAM! on june 14, 2008 and june 17, 2008 : http://the-wawam-file.blogspot.com/search/label/mar%20roxas
here is one of those tv ads – is this a product endorsement ad
or a political ad?
this is what senator mar roxas has to say on this tide tv spot:
Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, who once pushed the detergent brand Tide, denied doing any product endorsements: “But I didn’t endorse. I didn’t say that the public should buy a product, nor did I hold any product. And I did not say that it was better than the others. It’s a public service announcement saying that all product sellers should be true to consumers.”
let’s get this out of the way first before a discussion on the merits of senator roxas’ tide tv commercial.
the above statement is an empty rationalization of the endorsement ad senator roxas did for tide detergent. it’s lawyer speak that’s building a wall of semantics to have some good things around it to have some things to defend something bad.
of course the tv commercial is an endorsement ad. he doesn’t have to hold the product, he doesn’t even have to say anything, it’s enough for his face to be in the commercial and that automatically makes it an endorsement tv ad of tide detergent.
aside from that, the fact that he got several million pesos as talent fee obviously makes it an endorsement ad.
will tide detergent, a leading detergent brand pay him millions to appear in that commercial for public service? who is he kidding?
tide detergent is one of the most competitive detergent brands in the market. it is manufactured by procter & gamble, the inventor of the “brand management” system and one of the savviest marketers in the world. they will NOT get mar roxas to appear in their tv commercial for reasons other than selling cases of tide detergent.
not only did they pay senator mar roxas a handsome talent fee, they are spending hundreds of millions of pesos to air the tv commercial. there is nothing that tide detergent nor procter & gamble does that is not about selling more cases of its products.