Recently my attention landed on a couple of spots for two of America’s greatest exports: McDonalds and KFC. These two creative executions come from two different worlds, and are about as distinct as any two commercials you might imagine. So, the inevitable question is …
Who did it better?
One of these spots works well as actual make-you-buy-it advertising, the other one is a classic branding piece. Still, at the end of the day, both of these global brands are in the business of increasing same-store sales. And, if you believe the trades, that is something Mickey is struggling with these days.
So, what that in mind, once again, the question is … who did it better?
I’m not talking about the high-mindedness of the concept, or the excellence of the art direction, or the “wow, that was pretty neat” factor, either. I’m talking about which of these two spots might inspire a middle class family of four, like mine, to make a meal of it.
First, there’s the wonderful, whimsical McDonald’s spot
Creatively, this is a grand slam. It has great, earwormmy music, wonderful animation, the power of other iconic brands and a lovely and, for this client, unexpected level of concept.
This spot, and the campaign, succeeds at making me love the golden arches just a little more …
Next, let’s look at this hard-working slice of life effort on behalf of KFC
This is everything the McDonald’s spot is not. And that, my friends, is not necessarily a bad thing, and here’s why. The KFC spot gives me a valid reason — an excuse, if you will — for picking up a meal at KFC. My family deserves a break today (sorry, couldn’t resist) from the inevitability of the supermarket rotisserie chicken. Do we eat ’em? Of course we do! And I bet you do too (but I hope they are a little more appetizing than the grey bird KFC uses).
And, you know what? I may not eat every meal at KFC. Heck, I’d NEVER eat every meal at KFC. But I am definitely open to using their tasty birds as an alternative to the mounds of chicken my family already eats.
The advertising works – and works well, in my opinion – because it is built on consumer insight and the good old problem/solution model. The next time we pop open the dome on a rotisserie chicken, I am likely to think “Dang, I could have had a KFC!” There is a call to action in this spot, and that what makes it work.
And that’s just what the McDonald’s spot, for all its charms and executional brilliance, is lacking. What, exactly, is the action that commercial is inspiring me to take? To find my arch-enemy and take him or her for a Big Mac? I’m not Richard Nixon or even Sheldon Cooper, so my enemies list is pretty short and, the last time I checked, there are no arch enemies on there at all. So, while I smile warmly when I see two hated rivals sharing some fries, will it make it any more likely that I will get in the car and drive to get some?
But, maybe they don’t care. After all, as Deborah Wall U.S. Chief Marketing Officer for McDoanld’s “We believe that a little more lovin’ can change a lot, even the world we live in. Lately, the balance of lovin’ and hatin’ seems off. Who better to stand up for lovin’ than McDonald’s.”
An admirable sentiment (and an expression of tremendous confidence in the power of your brand to change the world) but will it sell any more burgers and fries?
And, even if that isn’t its intent, is today’s world really waiting for Coke to teach the world to sing again? Can that lightning strike again?
The moral of the story is … there’s a place in this big bad advertising world for branding and for advertising. Just make sure you know which one you want to do. I’m betting McDonald’s wants it to sell more burgers, not just make me feel good.