RAW School 2011 Best Ad, Jovert Bantilan’s RH Now Ad – off strategy is off communication
we don’t exactly know what Raw School 2011 is but the ad above has been going around twitter which is apparently a product of the Raw School 2011 competition. from what we can read from the FB page (http://on.fb.me/niFq2p) , Raw School seem to be a school for advertising students where creative directors from the ad agencies tutor or train students on advertising.
since advertising and reproductive health (RH) are two of our obsessions, we thought we should give our POV on the ad.
- we understand the ad was probably done by a student and was probably done without a strategy and no consumer insight
- not having a strategy and no consumer insight is the biggest and we even think fatal weaknesses of the ad
- the ad intentionally or unintentionally position RH as anti-sex which RH is not about. not only did the ad position RH incorrectly, the positioning of RH being anti-sex gives anti-RH advocates a good weapon against RH. RH advocates have always said RH is not about sex but about health, responsibility and open and free choice. anti-rh advocates on the other hand play up the sex component like for example the approval of the rh bill will lead to promiscuity
- “pangmadaliang sarap” is the colloquial for sex. to some it means quickie sex. the line in the ad says people should not have sex (or quickie sex) because it leads to long term problems (“pangmatagalang hirap”) of having a lot of children. the number of children is strongly implied in the number of spoons going after a small amount of rice in the visual
- that leads to a much bigger and problematic fatal error of the ad that plays exactly to the liking of anti rh advocates – that rh is anti-children. almost all filipinos reject the idea of being anti-children. that is a huge negative to pinoys who are very much into family and yes, people. our love for children is not just based on religion it is very much a part of our culture.
- it is possible that the creator of the ad wanted to communicate “responsible parenthood” or “responsible sex” where he wants to say that people who engage in sex should be responsible enough to know that their action can lead to pregnancy and that having too many children means parents will not have enough to support all their children. but nowhere in the ad is that directly or indirectly communicated. it is assumed, but it is not communicated. one of the strongest principles in advertising is this – what you see is what you get. if it is not stated or included in the ad, it is not communicated. the only things the target audience get are the things you include in the ad.
the elements above are the core of what advertising is all about – the strategy and the consumer insight. fail in that and the ad is not worth anything and in this case, it even hurts the product or service you are advertising.
this ad is a WAWAM!