Disclaimer: OPINION posts are my own ideas that I write without any claim to objectivity. Some may not agree, and that’s great.
The reason I decided to write this post is because each day I see advertisements that give me no clue about the brand or product behind them.
I think the main reason is that creators focus on the craft of advertising—cinematography, story, actors, decor—and forget to tie it back to the product.
Don’t get me wrong, I would never argue that those aspects of content aren’t important. Everyone loves high-quality production, but the ad itself should never overshadow the product since the product is why the ad exists in the first place.
This is why I believe creators should ask themselves how the ad they create will benefit current or potential customers. Is it going to drive sales? Is it going to increase customer loyalty enough to make a difference and cover the cost of that advertisement?
If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative.
David Ogilvy
To dig deeper, what happens when an ad overshadows a product?
Let’s look at BMW’s Christopher Walken advertisement that they created for Super Bowl.
I believe the concept is great. I love watching it. It’s fun, sounds nice, looks nice, and is easy to remember. However, it hides the product so well that there are only two ways you can tell it’s a BMW ad:
- Spot the logo on the front of the car (not easy—it’s visible for only 4 seconds, roughly 6% of the ad)
- Read the BMW text in the last ten seconds (would you pay that much attention at the end?)
In addition, Christopher Walken says nothing about BMW. He only mentions the car is electric. That’s it. Which car though? Which brand?
Now ask yourself: if you watched this during the Super Bowl, would you remember it as “the Christopher Walken ad” or “the BMW i5 ad”? You can guess my answer—it’s why I’m writing this post in the first place.
When viewers can’t answer that question correctly, it means BMW just wasted $14 million on brand recall for Christopher Walken, not the BMW i5.
The creative won. The brand lost.
What can be done better?
First of all, let me clarify something once again.
I don’t think creativity is bad for advertisements. I am not a psycho who wants to see black and white newspaper ads everywhere.
I just think that whatever you choose—celebrity or not, billions spent or not, digital or physical—an ad should never lose its connection to the brand. Only then does it function as an advertisement, not just as a Cannes Festival entry.
To give you an example, let’s look at Gabriel Macht x Mercedes-AMG advertisement.
It is an ad about cars, just like BMW.
It uses a celebrity, just like BMW.
It is high-production, just like BMW.
However, I think it works much better as an advertisement.
Here are the things I think ad of Mercedes does much better than BMW:
✅️ The ad immediately establishes that it’s about Mercedes-AMG and Gabriel Macht becoming the face of the brand. Also, AMG’s core value—ambition—is directly stated, and chosen celebrity is just right. (Macht known as the ambitious Harvey Specter in “Suits”)
✅️ All the content focuses on Mercedes-AMG and the cars. Remember how the BMW logo was only visible for 4 seconds? Here it’s the opposite. Gabriel Macht even dusts off the GT-63 logo on the car. The brand is impossible to miss.
✅️ Despite keeping the brand front and center, the ad is fun to watch. You don’t have to sacrifice entertainment to maintain brand clarity.
Now ask yourself again: if you watched this during the Super Bowl, would you remember it as “the Gabriel Macht ad” or “the Mercedes-AMG ad with Gabriel Macht”?
TL;DR
Advertisements can be creative, but not all creative work can be an advertisement.
You might gain a spot at Cannes Festival, but if your sales numbers are the same at the end of the night, that’s not a good advertisement—only good content.
Never lose connection with the brand; always relate to the product.