Branded entertainment and doubts

July 20th, 2008  |  Category:

I’ve written about Branded Entertainment numerous times and so I figure that it’s a subject I know something about - or at least I have an opinion about. But - see my previous posts - sometimes it’s good to question one’s opinions and convictions.

image_44210773.jpg

Therefore; let’s dive in. I read about an exposition of works of art, commissioned by Louis Vuitton, and exposed in their store on the Champs-Elys?es. Not so much Branded Entertainment as rather Branded Art, but still: here’s a brand that creates content about their brand (the theme is “travelling”) and by presenting this to their clients and prospects, hope to make a positive connection.

I get this. I don’t know if it will work, but I can see the brand logic behind it.

Now let’s apply this logic to a commercial I’ve blogged about twice (here and here) - and twice to say I may like it, but I don’t understand it, nor do I understand why a client would give money for this. Or why a jury at Cannes would award it as the best commercial this year.

But here’s the Louis Vuitton logic: Cadbury’s offer their clients 30 seconds of entertaining content. And in the words of Fallon: they hope it will bring positive “joy”-assocations to the brand. And in a more general statement: advertising is not about convincing anymore, but about creating a good mood around a brand.

There’s plenty of counterarguments I could raise. That fashion has always been connected to art, and that people therefore expect Vuitton to do something like that. That fashion is about identity and chocolate … isn’t. That “travelling”, loosely as it may be interpreted by the artists,is connected to the Vuitton brand, whereas a gorilla hasn’t got anything to do with chocolate. And the most trivial, but most heavy argument: I don’t feel it.

But here I am in a reflexive modus. Maybe I’m just a stubborn old-fashioned guy. What do you think? Should I let “gorilla” off the hook (not that it matters if I do or don’t, not with the Cannes-jury smiling upon it)? Is meaningless-but-oh-so-entertaining advertising just another form of Branded Entertainment, and what’s more, the advertising of the future?

Let me know …

And talking of Branded Entertainment: here’s a very gross example. Read the case study (scruffs.pdf) before watching the movie though …

Comments

  1. [...] my opinion on the commercial we’re discussing, look here. Bookmark this [...]

Leave a Reply