How John Lewis get away with something 99.9% of brands should be wary of attempting

Sturgeon’s law explains why 90% of advertisers do not attempt this kind of advertising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law

Most advertisers (closer to 100% of all Australian advertisers) make crap that cannot stand on its own two feet in terms of entertainment/noticeability.

Adding branded cues to this ad would arguably ruin the immersive experience, and IMHO make it less noticeable.

Where these ads work is that it pulls you out of the pack of general dross and gives your brand a head start. Good follow-up and you should see sales. I strongly agree with you that their huge integrated back-up will make this a retail success.
But their market is also very receptive. I I believe the British consumers are well set-up to embrace this type of ‘non-product all-story’ campaign thanks to a solid history of exposure to brands who have used this style for decades.
Luxury brands such as Harrods, caution broken by Barclay Bank and the outstanding Levi ‘Swimmer’ ad, plus the tradition of long Christmas ads laced with that subtle British humour have ‘educated’ their market much more than here to ‘seek’ out the brand. This helps give you an audience willing to engage and wait for the ‘payoff’ tag.
(As a writer, I join in with those who sigh when viewing the Cannes reel as we think “Could those creative story-telling ads work with Australian audiences?” “Would any of my clients get on board?”
The jury is sadly still out judging by what’s on show today.)

Now I may not be able to wrap up a point of view in so many fancy words as you do here but I’m pretty sure people don’t listen so much to straight up teachers who talk down to you . They listen to entertainers. Christ on a bike. It’s called storytelling. It’s the second oldest profession (they had to have something to have a story about) if 1000s years ago you stepped up and said “people! I am , you are wrong, ditch your nonscence beliefs and follow me for I am more worthy!” You’d have been left standing on your own.Wrap it up and deliver it as the subtext of a rhyme, the ending of a charming story or the moral of a quirky fable and you’ve got a winner. BTW. Have you heard the one about the emperors new clothes? It’s rather good. I’m all for a solid direct bit of logo stamping and brand embodiment – brands that are full of worthy puff make me sick, but this is a straightforward lovely ad that makes me want to buy stuff for people i love. And yes I’d be more likely to buy from john Lewis if I lived anywhere near one.

Now I may not be able to wrap up a point of view in so many fancy words as you do here but I’m pretty sure people don’t listen so much to straight up teachers who talk down to you . They listen to entertainers. Christ on a bike. It’s called storytelling. It’s the second oldest profession (they had to have something to have a story about) if 1000s years ago you stepped up and said “people! I am (insert religion here), you are wrong, ditch your nonscence beliefs and follow me for I am more worthy!” You’d have been left standing on your own.Wrap it up and deliver it as the subtext of a rhyme, the ending of a charming story or the moral of a quirky fable and you’ve got a winner. BTW. Have you heard the one about the emperors new clothes? It’s rather good. I’m all for a solid direct bit of logo stamping and brand embodiment – brands that are full of worthy puff make me sick, but this is a straightforward lovely ad that makes me want to buy stuff for people i love. And yes I’d be more likely to buy from john Lewis if I lived anywhere near one.

It’s the ad that the agency suggested Optus wanted to run 5 years ago for their Christmas campaign… but it didn’t have enough prepaid phones in it *

Seriously Eaon, you do get the idea of an emotional journey, don’t you? Your article is like looking at a teaser ad and saying “so who is this for?”

You’re a very dangerous man Eaon, spreading this crap. And if I was the creative director at the agency you worked at, I’d fire you tomorrow. I assume you’d have the John Lewis logo up big in the corner from the very beginning? Why not cinema scope it and have the John Lewis colours in the bars? And while you’re at it, why don’t we throw in some cut away shot of all the things John Lewis sell? That’ll help with branding too I’m sure. And why are they using animation? Surely it only appeals to kids and John Lewis isn’t a store for kids. And do we really need it to be so long, when 30 seconds would do just fine? And all of this will make it just like every other ad running in the UK this Christmas. None of which are getting talked about on the other side of the world.

You obviously haven’t worked in the UK and if you have, you didn’t pick up that the advertising culture is very different there than in Australia. Campaigns like this, and Flat Eric for example, are much more than just ads on TV. They get into the culture, in the news, on the cover of magazines and in newspapers. It’s a totally different advertising landscape there compared to Australia.

This ad stands out like dogs bollocks because it is so different to anything else running at Christmas in the UK. And it’s all the stronger for not having branding all the way through. I think John Lewis will have done enough research to justify a budget that large, so if you still think any of you’re comments hold water, you’re an even bigger fool than I thought you were when I first read this article. Pull your head in and talk about something you know about. Big UK TV ad campaigns aren’t it.

@Finnola agree, but have a look at Harrods ads. They always introduce with the logo or a store exterior shot – distinctive brand assets. Even the Levis Swimmer takes only about 2 seconds to give you a cue with the riveted pocket and the 501 label right up front. If the content is creative and compelling enough then the branding doesn’t feel clunky.

@nick williams. For sure. But when this is held up as a case then those other integrated elements will not be remembered. Studies suggest around 90% of ads/brand videos online only get watched for 10seconds at most so if no branding appears it’s usually a missed opportunity.

@brass monkey ha. I’ve used that many times. But remember Sturgeons Revelation decrees that 90% of everything is crap.

This is actually quite frightening to read.

John Lewis has, year on year, built their brand through ever more engaging advertising. Each year that passes, they have greater permission to do the kind of work that you see in this example.

To suggest that John Lewis is some kind of outlier, using methodologies that “99.9% of brands should be wary of attempting” is getting things completely arse-about.

99.9% of advertisers – those who currently cannot hope to create work this engaging and effective (and yes, it IS highly effective) – should be working towards being able to do so.

John Lewis has the brand metrics to demonstrate just how profitable this can be.

What I read in this piece is a whole lot of strat theory and absolutely zero understanding of the efficacy of commercial creativity, and a discernible lack of understanding of how to build brands.

@adgrunt of course. I spend all day everyday going on about emotional response and association.

@beg to differ We agree on more than you think. Building a brand means being consistently recognised and bought by lots of people, which John Lewis have – for the most part – achieved over time. Hence, as you say, they have more permission.

“Waiting until 1:57 to reveal is a risk for all but the most compelling content.”

Content is essential, but John Lewis did a great deal to leverage that content.

Creatively the ad is an exceptionally effective piece. It has a simple but compelling storyline, beautifully executed, that hits the heartstrings and has viewers wanting to see what happens next. This “sit-forward” factor, with viewers actively watching, increases the likelihood they’ll be paying attention to the ad, and pick up on the brand.

But John Lewis used other tactics that explain how they can get away with minimal branding.

Viewers were primed with a teaser campaign leading up to the launch, while the ads first run in X-Factor was primed by a voice-over saying “now for a special treat, we’re proud to present the TV premiere of a unique Christmas advert”. This prompted viewers to consciously pay attention to the ad, which increases the potential to pick up on the brand at the end.

Plus this isn’t a first-time one-off gimmick for an unknown brand. John Lewis have been running Christmas ads since 2007, and “John Lewis Christmas ads” are now a thing. Exposure to the idea of a “John Lewis Christmas ad” triggers memories and associations built up over the previous six years, and goes a long way to making up for low-level branding.

Factor in PR, heavy media spend (around £390m for the quarter), online exposure – even if people didn’t get it the first time, viewers would have to go out of their way not to link the ad and the brand by the end of the campaign.

Now as a general rule-of-thumb I agree that insufficient branding is a problem with most ads. Lack of brand identification continues to be a significant problem with most commercials. Of course any rule-of-thumb will have exceptions, and the John Lewis ad is a brilliant example of how you can benefit by breaking the rules.

Not every advertiser can do a John Lewis. But most could certainly do better by shifting more towards the John Lewis end of the spectrum.

I feel pretty sorry for the guys at Sputnik if this is the kind if strategic help and direction they are getting. I thought we left it to the client to piss all over and water down our ideas. Make the logo bigger before it even leaves the building. Put the calculator back in the draw and feel a bit of magic man.

I’m in the UK right now and thought I’d give you the view from over here – it’s probably not that helpful watching the TVC solely from a youtube link, in isolation. John Lewis first ‘leaked’ the spot to a few influential blogs etc, and then officially launched the spot in the middle of the Sat night X Factor, with a fully sponsored, 2 minute ‘this is a special christmas message from John Lewis’ ad break, featuring no other advertisers. They have pumped it out ever since. The ad, and the even just launch of the ad generated pretty solid mainstream press coverage – it seems to be something a lot of people look forward to each year, probably because they’ve done such a good job previously. The launch also coincided with Lily Allen kicking off her comeback (she sings the track) and Keane (who wrote the song) releasing a greatest hits album – so lots of subsequent press all round for the ‘John Lewis TVC singer’ and the ‘band who wrote the song’. The bulk of this year’s christmas ads/TVCs for competitors (M&S, Debenhams etc and even Tesco, Sainsbury, Aldi) are all very similar to each other in style – lots of pics of snow and christmas hams and baubles and nice models in nice clothes. The JL appears to be the only animated, storytelling type TVC on air at moment. If you’re like me and watch the ads in high speed as you fast forward, it’s the one ad that is clearly identifiable at x 8 speed. Trust me*, everyone knows this is a John Lewis ad. I think they’ve done a great job and I reckon this type of storytelling is the benchmark for what we should be doing in Oz.

*I have no proof to back up this claim other than my wife, who agrees with me.

@Eaon

Sorry mate, but you completely lost me with this:

“Also recognise how easily this could have been fixed by inserting distinctive branding throughout the spot.”

You think this spot needs “fixing”??? Jesus wept.

@spinyard and @unshiny dutchman thanks. agree with you both.
Exactly, the huge PR push and half a billion media spend and all the other integrated elements means they can do this.
What some of the commenters don’t get is my fear is that brand x comes to us and says we want to do a 90sec tv spot with no branding til the last second, and imagine it will be effective on it’s own.

@marbles mcginty I know who you are. stop being a dick.

If your point is, the logo should be bigger, then it sounds like you’ve mentally crossed over client side.

@phil (if that is your name) did you actually read any of the words?

I thought the article was simply pointing out that some brands have enough equity to pull this off and others don’t. It’s all very well to entertain (and believe me I really enjoyed the piece) but it’s hard to justify the cost of entertaining people if it doesn’t carry through on message and branding at the same time. Tough one to make ‘absolute’ calls on but worth pointing out that the conflict is there and needs to be considered in execution.

Creatives get upset when their art is sullied by commercial imperatives.