We’ve heard about “likeable” media – but what about “blinkable” advertising? That’s our agency’s term for brand exposure that is so brief, you might miss the message if you blink. Is this not-quite-subliminal branding worthwhile or a waste of marketing dollars?
Earlier this month, Eminem released a Spike Lee-directed video on Mother’s Day. The video is a fairly touching piece shot through the eyes of his long-estranged mother, and one would assume it represents an olive branch of sorts from Eminem. I watched the video and had to do a double take at the 2:26 mark when a single shot of the front grill of a Dodge is haphazardly spliced into to the video. I find this to be the worst kind of disruptive. Knowing that Eminem is a spokesperson for the Detroit car manufacturer, it is not surprising that he is driving a Dodge in the video. But the way the single shot is inserted in the video screams of a colossal mix-up on Spike Lee’s side. (Warning: explicit video follows.)
Interestingly, this explicit video that has a blip of Dodge branding jammed into it currently requires viewers to watch a family-friendly ad from Chevy:
What? If you’re going to literally insert yourself into the video, then at least own it in terms of the actual advertising opportunity.
This is not the first time I have noticed this kind of advertorial spliced into a music video. Check out the 2:23 mark of this Katy Perry video where it is clear that a ‘beauty shot’ of an Ice-Watch has been spliced into the action.
Working on the account / strategy team on the ad agency side, I understand both brands’ desires to have their products clearly featured in video content from two of music’s most popular acts. I just wonder if there might have been a better way to execute this in the pre OR post production phase of the video making.
In the end, I don’t think these types of disruptions do anything for the brand – except possibly look like a mistake.
~ Jaime Hamel, Digital Strategist, The S3 Agency
