TV ad evaluation

T.V Advertisement Evaluation -

Our task was to firstly research multiple brands from within the hugely successful multinational company Unilever. After doing so we would have to focus on one individual brand that we thought that we could rebrand and renew a particular product for a completely new demographic audience. After deciding on our individual product we had to explore multiple ways in which we could actually change the image and then promote this image in a successful and productive manner. Following this we had to create a presentation using the software ‘Prezi’ and pitch our ideas to our classmates. We had to not only describe in depth the way in which we would rebrand the product and who the new demographic was but we also then had to look at the potential legality risks associated with our image for example following the BCAP coding. My individual idea was the rebranding of the product line ‘Vaseline’ and I believed that we could help bring an existing brand to both younger people and perhaps even a male consumer base since primarily Vaseline is seen as an old fashioned product for both parents and the elderly. When we had pitched our individual ideas to the class we were graded and afterwards placed within a randomized small group of three people. Within our newly found group we had to then make a decision on whose idea we would use and if we were in disagreement we could come up with and entirely new idea altogether.  Afterwards some humming and haring we decided upon Lauren’s idea which was the rebranding of Lynx towards a fully-fledged female audience.

The existing product is geared towards a young male audience within the age ranges of early teens to mid-twenties. The reasons being for example the crass objectification of women, the use of young actors in the ad campaigns and also the use of youthful terms such as ‘pulling power’.  Since we had both a male and two females in our group we were able to discuss the fact that although there was an existing product out there for women that it was not a solo effort and was tied in with its male counterpart.

Once we were grouped up and had a discussion we had to share and develop both new and the existing ideas from the original presentation. After this was in place we then proceeded to produce the required pre-production paperwork that was required before we could commence with filming. Halfway through completing our paperwork we ran into multiple issues surrounding our current idea with problems such as time and location so ultimately we scrapped the entire idea and started from fresh. This ultimately had an effect on how our finished product came to be since there was some wasted time but not to the point of hindering our grade boundaries.

After filming and editing our final piece we then had people evaluate the quality of our work in the form of questionnaires that were hosted on the free survey site survey monkey. We had to create suitable and unbiased questions in order to collect and interpret valid data. The questions not only had to be valid but they had to have enough behind them in the way of concise answers and content that we could reach a clear answer as to how well our finished piece worked; the reason being we only took in a relatively limited number of no more than twenty people each. Since the way in which we distributed our surveys were through social media sites you could argue that in fact it was peer reviewed and indeed biased, however since we surveyed both male and female participants this almost negates the fact that our age range was limited and indeed our results still remained valid.

I personally think that considering our issues and limitations we actually had a decent piece of completed work at the end of the unit. We decided to film at one of our group member’s houses and our location itself was a double edged sword in that there were both benefits and hindrances that were present. For example the benefits of being where we were included: Lack of public noise and presence, provided an intimate and realistic setting, allowed for filming out of college or public hours. Examples of hindrances included: Time taken to drive to location was considerable, homely setting didn’t inspire a conscious effort to work, if Lucia were to be ill we would have no means of both transport and location. There were some other instances that disrupted our workflow and these where of a situational occurrence; there was another group that was allowed access to work and film in the house and paired with this there was the requirement for both me and one of my team members to be acting and actively involved in their work which again took time from us and our production. However given that we had even less time the other group did actively assist in our production in the sense that they helped with both acting and actually filming when all three group members were acting at once and so there was a balance between the good and the bad and such it worked well and without so much as a hiccup. From a technical outlook some of the shots and the way in which our product flowed where of a fine quality other than the odd requirement here and there for the use of editing tools located on the media suite.

My favourite shot was actually the ending scenes in which the camera was at the head of the table and the actors were well engrossed into their roles which produced a realistic and genuine feel to the experience which works as a selling tool which relates to the entire point of the task. That, paired with the fact that there were couples happily sharing time with each other while showing affection draws on the vision that most young women desire and again strengthens the connection between the product and its requirement to live that life.