TV commercials tell us a story – the latest Nike Mercurial Vapor IV ad tells us how the new Nike boots help make professional footballers faster.

Print ads – and online ads – are no different. Direct mail sales letters have perfected the art of story-telling in ad copy, although they have the advantage of printed paper which tends to get more attention (and thus a greater chance to build interest and keep attention through the story-telling format). Online ads have less time and space compared to commercials or print ads (who looks at the AdWords listings or your regular sidebar graphic ads for more than a few seconds?) and they’ve adapted to the format, using word play and visual clues to tell their story.

These narratives are geared to present options in black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, desirable and undesirable, pain and the absence of pain, joy and the absence of joy, and so on.

Things are (usually) simple in advertising – no gray areas, no doubts, no complex scenarios. It’s easier to convey (and understand) the idea that driving fast can kill you than it is to explain that it’s taking unnecessary risks that will kill you, not driving fast (drunk driving is as risky as an inexperienced driver going 120 miles per hour which in turn is as risky as going 100 miles per hour in a car with poor brakes straight into a crowded intersection). People find it easier to relate fast driving to danger as opposed to relating their own risk-taking ability (or lack thereof) to danger.

Most advertising relies on the above principle to externalise complex problems, simplify them and then offer equally simple solutions. It’s not reality, but it works and if you can get enough people thinking like that, then it IS the truth for them, and that’s all that matters – to them and to the advertisers selling to them.

Sometimes the message is less clear – the Nokia 6233 ad portrays the phone as being an all-round powerhouse, but it neither does a good job of conveying that power nor does it do justice to the phone’s all-round ability (I’ve had a 6233 for over an year now and it’s an excellent phone, albeit a ‘jack-of-all-trades’).

With the above mind, here are 5 keys to telling effective stories – narratives that get the audience to think / do what the creators want them to do:

1. Keep it Simple, Dumbass

You have a few seconds, at best, to catch your prospect’s attention. Stick to a single, clear, concise message. Cut through the chaff. Omit needless words.

2. Vivid and Visual

Colors, powerful language and visual content – apart from conveying subconscious cues about your core message, these elements also help in attracting and keeping attention.

Another example is the Zheng Zhi ad for the 2008 Olympics which uses emotional cues to get its method across.

3. Establish Relevance

Why is this important to me / why should I care? Make your story relevant to the largest possible audience. For more, read this excellent article on establishing ‘relevance’.

4. Prove Credibility

The other day I saw a Mobilink Indigo commercial – their methodology for this sub-brand is simple: push the ‘exclusivity’ factor, and use celebrity endorsements to convert prospects.

We tend to laugh off celebrity endorsements but the truth is that they work on an emotional, subconscious level and as such they can never be totally discounted (especially when they are used in context).

Credibility comes in different sizes – social proof is one strategy, another is to use authentic research the way Nike did for their Vapor IV ads.

5. Action!

Advertisers often fail to capitalise on their hard work by NOT including any actionable steps at the end of each ad. Even a mediocre ad that gets little traction can bring in a new stream of customers by simply adding a url at the end of the ad which points to a landing page for a mailing list.

Another option (as discussed earlier) is to invite the audience to take action through their mobile phones.

Whatever you do, get people to take some sort of action at the end of the advertisement. Offer some reason to take action, such as a discount voucher or free offer.

Subsrcibe to our RSS feed.

This is not meant as criticism – in fact, I applaud Danica for her work (on the racing track as well as in front of the camera) and the way she adjusts to both sides of the coin without much fuss. She’s comfortable with courting media attention and focused on succeeding on the track regardless of it – a trait that few sports personalities share.

As RideLust points out,

Danica Patrick has risen in the sport of Indy Racing based solely on her talent and business acumen. She is a sharp driver and pragmatic about her career choices.

Indeed she is. However, her openness to leveraging her sexuality to her advantage will always invite criticism (whether it’s from women complaining about the objectification of the female body or it’s from ‘purists’ who feel that sports is only about what happens on the track / field and all this modeling stuff just demeans it) – it’s how the public reacts when they’re faced with a brand that is naturally marketable and geared for success from the word go, like Danica is.

Timing is everything

It’s not as if Danica Patrick is stunningly H-H-H-H-H-OTTT (for the record, Anna Kournikova is prettier, but do you see the similarities in the photo shoot from 4 years ago?) – she has a well-toned body (she IS a professional sportswoman after all, did you expect a beer belly?) but isn’t exactly a perfect 10. or 9. or 8.5 (despite her best efforts in this photo).

But she was the right person (a white girl better than most boys at racing cars) in the right place (a sport overwhelmingly dominated by men – a contradiction that was bound to attract attention) at the right time (when the sport needed to uplift itself and its sagging support). Timing matters as much as ability, temperament and business acumen and Danica has timed her rise to perfection.

Danica the race driver v Danica the model

The reaction she attracts is stinging at times and often has nothing to do with her abilities as a race driver. To quote Formula One driver Jenson Button who dismissed the chances of her involvement in Formula One racing:

A girl with big boobs would never be comfortable in the car. And the mechanics wouldn’t concentrate. Can you imagine strapping her in?

Leveraging her sexuality has definitely compromised the integrity of the brand that is ‘Danica the racer’ (although being a woman in a male-dominated sport meant that that integrity was always under attack) – as AutoBlog says:

…it’s also more difficult to take her seriously as a driver when she’s topless.

Danica Patrick – The David Beckham of Motor Sports?

It might be easier to understand Danica’s status as a brand if you consider one of the most famous contemporary sports brands today – David Beckham.

As someone who has watched Beckham play over the years, there’s no doubting his technical abilities as a soccer player, but the media cannot seem to look beyond his appeal as a brand. You could even argue that his career hasn’t turned out exactly as he planned because of his celebrity status – as a brand Beckham has few peers, but the inevitable compromise has been to face consistent criticism over his abilities as a sportsman.

American motorsports will get much needed exposure from Danica’s photoshoot. SI will benefit, as they always do when they put out images of barely-clothed well-toned women. Danica will make more money (and the exposure will give her more opportunities to leverage brand Danica in future commercial ventures). But like David Beckham, Danica will face more and more criticism over her abilities as a race driver.

Then again, the speculation has done little to dampen Beckham’s value as a soccer player (you can debate it in the comments below) and has done nothing to dampen his commercial value (obviously, ads like these help).

when you look at the respect David Beckham has and the space he has made for himself in history (any other soccer player with the same ability but minus the brand would not get even 1/1000th of the attention – and Beckham’s a very talented player), who can fault Danica for going down the same road?

But do commercials really HAVE to suck? Isn’t there some way that we could actually make them better – better for the audience AND better for the companies pushing those ads? I say this because I figure that:

less people hating your ad = more people watching it = more people buying your product

As long as the ad agency remembers to put in a call to action and understands the basics of conversion, the above formula should hold true, correct?

So let’s look at how we can fix the bane that is TV commercials – and it’s quite simple really: find out WHY they suck and remove that irritant without compromising on the basic goal (i.e. sell stuff / promote your brand / etc).

Why TV Commercials Suck

Interrupt Narratives – TV commercials interrupt narratives that the audience are emotionally and materially (time) invested in. It’s the equivalent of reading a mystery and being forced to take a 2-3 minute break every 10 minutes to go look at the classifieds in your newspaper. Sure, you might need to buy a new car or get new curtains or whatever, but I’m going to assume that because you took the time out to read that book, you’re probably more interested in finished it (or reading a significant portion of it) NOW instead of getting up and going to the grocery store to buy milk, right?

Commercials are necessary but irritating. There has to be a better way to show ads without such brutal interruptions, right?

Untargeted – Most TV commercials are untargeted and have very little to do with the audience currently watching that particular TV show. Sure, ad rates and availability mean that people buy exposure more than they buy targeted exposure, but how stupid is it to show hair-care product ads during an episode of 24?

To be fair, you do see some level of targeted marketing – but overall there is a great divide between what is relevant to the audience and what is usually shown.

Too Much, Too Quickly – Ok, so they’re short of time during commercials and once the bright lights and the pretty models distract us, it makes sense to ram down as much information as possible down our throats (they might never get another chance, except they do 10 minutes later in the second commercial break…and so on).

Assuming that the viewer is even interested, there’s very little information that he or she needs to make a buying decision. Top of that list is ‘how does this satisfy my needs?’. Pricing, endorsements and talking bees don’t tell me much – I want to know how it will help ME, and if you can’t answer that in one sentence in the first 5 seconds, then the commercial is a waste of time.

I’m sure you’ll find more problems with TV commercials – maybe you don’t like how commercials routinely underestimate the intelligence of their viewing audience. However, I think that such problems (and especially this lack of respect for the viewers) can go away if the above three problems are fixed.

How To Fix TV Ads

Better Audience Targeting – part of this involves detailed profiling of TV audiences, which is being done more or less today. The other part is to match these profiles with the ideal audience for your products and then targeting specific TV shows. Yes, you might not get maximum exposure that way but you will easily get much better conversion (especially if you do everything else right).

It’s not rocket science, really – and it’s being done already in some way (remember the ‘Lost Experience‘ ads?).

And when you profile and target your audience, you create ads that they are likely to be receptive to – and thus eliminate the need to use visual crutches to get attention.

Continue The Narrative – instead of interrupting the narrative, think of ways to continue it (not the exact story of course) in terms of how your product / service relates to the back story. The Lost Experience ads mentioned above did exactly this – they continued the story and stayed in context, making it easier for viewers to pay attention and stay in the same frame of mind while watching the show and watching the commercials.

To make this work you’d need advertisers to target specific TV shows but that’s a bit like saying that advertisers would be targeting specific keywords or pages online – it’s a simple, straight-forward concept and it works far better than scatter-gun advertising.

Keep It Simple, Please – The more you ask people to think during an ad break (remember, our minds are most numb while we’re watch TV – which is kind of why the crappy advertising sometimes works) or the more you ask them to do, the more likely it is that your ad will flop. Free the ad of all clutter and stick to a single idea, a single pitch.

Mind you, keeping it simple does not mean dumbing it down and underestimating the intelligence of the audience – it simply means that you make your message / sales pitch crystal clear and poignant so that the viewers remember THAT and not a catchy punchline that does little to get them to buy the product (popularity of a commercial doesn’t not automatically translate into more sales).

Immediate Call For Action

Branding is great – showing untargeted ads that do nothing but remind viewers that Company X or Product Y exists are not.

It’s a given that advertising – whether it’s on TV or in print – needs a distinct and clear call to action. What’s equally important is how easy it should be for the viewers to take that action.

In print advertising coupons are excellent calls to action – they’re tangible (you can cut them out) and you know exactly what to do with them. Online ads have the same advantage – subscribe via RSS or sign up to a newsletter. The best calls to action take very little time to ‘hook’ the prospect and ask for little commitment.

Why can’t TV commercials be like that? Asking someone to go online and register on their website or to ‘buy a certain product the next time they are at the supermarket’ is a bit ridiculous and goes back to the same problem of interrupting narratives.

The preferred way is to ask viewers to call a toll-free number, but I’d suggest something much simpler – use SMS. It’s less time consuming, most people have their cellphones readily available to them even while watching TV and there’s no person-to-person interaction, which can sometimes be another obstacle.

This is one area where many companies are doing a great job in innovating – in terms of targeting the mobile space and in creating effective calls to action. However there are still many TV commercials and advertisements that don’t do this well (or have calls to action at all), and for the sake of both viewers and the companies pushing their commercials, something this basic has to be done right.

Do You Think TV Commercials Are Annoying? How Would You Fix Them?

There are 3 simple ways to rate the quality of an advertisement:

1. Popularity – how much the audience likes the ad. This appreciation could have different causes for each individual and each advertisement, but the end result is pretty much the same – people remember it, talk about it with their friends and family and when they come across that product / service / brand in real life, they’re reminded of that ad and how it made them feel.

2. Conversion – how well these ads convert viewers into customers (or subscribers). Compared to online and direct mail advertising, TV commercials and their conversions are somewhat difficult to measure accurately. However, the link between ad exposure and new customers is real and and an effective way to measure the success of an ad. It also goes on to show that popular commercials do not necessarily convert the best (just as in e-mail marketing, the most popular headlines may get the best open-rates but not the best conversion rates).

3. Overcoming Resistance – how well the ad overcomes initial doubt and answers questions. Traditional marketing (or as Seth Godin calls it, interruption marketing) has the unpleasant side-effect of being resisted by its target audience. Take TV commercials – they are almost always an interruption to the narrative that you’ve invested time and emotions in (i.e. your favourite TV show) and viewers can’t wait for them to end. By overcoming this resistance quickly and effectively, an ad can do really well.

Ideally the best ad would tick all three boxes – it would be entertaining and memorable, it would convert well and it would look nothing like an ad.

Most of the time though, advertising agencies go for the memorable option because they are trained at interruption marketing and know how to attract attention best – they have time-tested and proven formulas that work. This is why you’ll see people talk about branding and mindshare in vague terms and discuss ‘getting the name out’ as opposed to ‘effective advertising’ – by monitoring conversion and improving the effectiveness of their ads through reduced initial resistance.

The above model can be used to ‘create’ great advertising and TV commercials, but it’s not complete. It’s missing something essential, something that ad agencies tend to ignore.

The best ads are those that the audience WANTS to see.

Imagine that. Instead of forcing people to see your ads by sending emails, direct mail, buying ad slots on TV, etc, you create advertising that your core audience will want to see – and will make an effort to see it.

Instead of working on how to interrupt the narrative most effectively to attract attention, you turn things around and figure out what your audience will be most attracted to based on their specific personal desires (as opposed to using trite psychological cues such as attractive models, lots of smiles, bright colours, excessive repetition and outrageous claims).

That means:

• no interruptions (or better yet, a continuation of the narrative),
• directly related to their needs,
• a memorable pitch that sticks in their minds and
• a easy, quick way to take action

We have way too many things demanding for our attention at the same time – it’s difficult for us to choose and this problem of information overload is going to keep getting worse. Advertising can adapt in two ways:

• Commercials can get increasingly better at ‘interrupting’ (read annoying)
• Advertisers can flip it around and get their prospects to actively take an interest in their ads

Which one do you think will work best in the future?

Once you create the right conditions, you as an advertiser don’t need to worry about creating interest or reducing resistance – both of these things would be automatically taken care for you. When it comes to resistance, it’s all about how well an ad sidesteps resistance in the first place, not how well it overcomes that resistance. When it comes to interest, it’s about tapping the interest already present, not about creating new interest in the prospect.