Introduction
Marmites advertising history is as powerful
and distinctive as the product itself. From the ‘Definitely does you good’
campaign of the 1930s to the long running and iconic ‘love it or hate it’
slogan of the early nineties, Marmite certainly loves to play around with
concepts and both loyalty and revulsion.
In 2013, after a two year hiatus from
television advertising, Marmite created a new and humorous advertising campaign
that parodied the animal abuse documentary. The ad received over 300 complaints
in the 24 hours following its release and racked up 25k views on Youtube. Whether
a love or loather of the product, it was hard to ignore the presence of this
new campaign. It’s certainly not the first ad campaign to
split up bite-sized video material in order to create a beefier episodic
narrative; but it’s certainly one that’s doing it very well.
The report will seek to undercover how Marmite
constructs their brand identity and how this has developed since its creation
in 1912. It will analyse what technique Marmite brand manages use in order to
do this and will analyse if and how these campaigns were successful.
Methodology
In order to undertake an effective research
report I will be using discourse as my analytical tool. In his book How to do discourse
analysis, James Paul Gee (2011) argues that “no one theory is universally right or universally applicable” (Paul Gee, 2011: 1) rather
they all offer tools that can be applied to different types of data to be
analyses. Arguably the most important of these theories is postmodernist
theorists Michel Foucault.
Developing his theory of discourse in
his early work The Archaeology of
Knowledge, Foucault (1971) was convinced that the world we live in is
structured by knowledge. In other words: certain people and social groups
create and formulate ideas about our world, which under certain conditions turn
into unquestioned truths and start to seem normal.
Lara Lessa (2006) summarizes
Foucault’s definition of discourse as “Systems
of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes and course of action, beliefs and
practices that systematically construct the subjects and worlds of which they
speak” (Lessa, 2006: 283-298 ). Foucault (1977) argued that discourse and power
are closely related as they both operate by the same rules of exclusion.
Discourse can therefore be seen to be controlled by objects; the privileged,
who may speak and the boundaries of what can be spoken of (Foucault, 1972).
Advertising is viewed as a discourse platform
to sell and inform products, ideas and services to the public. The messages we
see in advertisement fill the entire cultural landscape. Newspapers and magazine
are full of print advertisements whilst television ads fill our screens just as
often our favourite shows. Due to the growing effectiveness of persuasion
techniques in advertising, it has become firmly established into social
discourse. “What an ad means depends on
how it operates, how its signs and its ideological effect are organised
internally (within the ad)” (G, Dyer, 2008, p91).
Literature Review
Branding
In Brands: a critical
perspective Adam Arvidsson (2005) argues that ‘brands create an ethical
surplus (a social bond, a shared experience, a common identity) through
productive communication’. (Arvidsson, 2005: 235-258). Arvidsson discusses the difference in
definitions of ‘Brand values’ from a consumer perspective and those in branding
managerial positions. He argues that focusing on the attributes of a product is
the most common pitfall of brand managers. Instead Arvidsson believes they
should focus on the emotional benefits of a brand, ‘Brand values are about
fostering an attachment; be it experiences, emotions, attitudes, and loyalty to
the brand’ (Arvidsson, 2005 235-258). Arvidsson suggests that the
managerial point of view of brand values represent the monetary value of what a
brand is, where it currently stands in the market and its future profits.
Arvidsson continues his article by
discussing where brand values come from. Stating that many in the business
believe a brands value is attributed to factors like tradition, coincidence or
luck. He suggests that it is in fact the brand managers who skilfully produce
advertising, marketing, product placements, staged events and a number of other
strategies that create the immaterial qualities on which brand values are
based.
Alison Hearn (2008) defines the term brand to
mean “stand for a distinct form of marketing practice intended to link
products and services with resonant cultural meanings through the use of
narratives and images.” (Hearn, 2008: 197). In her article Meat,
Mask, Burden`: Probing the contours of the branded self she discusses the
inflections of self-branding across several different mediated forms. She
considerers the self as a “strategic life-brand intended to rhetorically
persuade employers of its competitive viability” (Hearn, 2008: 197) as well as an image that has
been carefully crafted to gain fame and profit.
Promotional Discourse
In Persuasion across genres: A Linguistic Approach author Bhatia (2005) explains the basic and fundamental patterns in
promotional discourse in his article Generic
patterns in promotional discourse. Whilst Bhatia’s work does not offer an in depth analysis into
promotional culture, he suggests a basic understanding of promotional discourse
in relation to advertising. Bhatia’s
example explains how advertising copywriters have a wide selection of
rhetorical moves that can use in order to display a meaning or message through
advertisements. Bhatia argues that these moves can used by good copywriters to “achieve an effect most suitable for a
particular product or service keeping in mind the audience they target” (Bhatia, 2005: 213-225).
Whilst Bhatias work in mainly concerned with
the promotional discourse found in print advertisements he states that “promotion genres have become the most
versatile and fast developing area of discourse” (Bhatia, 2005:
213-225). Bhatia points out that are a number of factors
to account for this development, including the development of new technologies
in mass communication. Therefore it will be important to analyse if and how
these developments have impacted upon Marmites attempt at a brand
identity.
Intertextuality
One main technique brands often use in
promotional discourse is intertextuality.
Defined as a “kind of relationship by which texts are interwoven with each other” (Liu and Le
2013: ) Liu and Le (2013) discuss intertextuality in relation to
advertising in their work Intertextual Techniques in Advertisements.
Their fundamental argument is that intertextuality helps an audience
member “to interpret the meaning of an
advertisement, in that the original text being referred to could establish a
message which the second text can use and elaborate on” (Liu & Le, 2013:11). In this
sense the second text does not have to ‘try so hard’ to convey a message.
Liu and Le argue that this
technique of promotional discourse is used to arouse the consumers’ memory and
create a correlation between different forms of advertisements and thus
stimulating their desire to purchase said product “as it is natural for people to accept things they are familiar with” (Liu, and Le, 2013: 11). The
advantage of intertextuality is that many advertisers prefer to use a number of
different strategies to advertise their products.
Intertextuality allows consumer sot remember a product or more importantly
where this research in concerned, the brand.
Liu & Les work then goes on to explain the
three explicit forms of intertextuality in advertisements, quotation, parody
and allusion. Parody is defined as “a
process of generating new expressions by changing or borrowing some parts of
the original sources” (Liu
and Le, 2013: 11). As
will be seen in this report, parody will is a very important factor in Marmites
brand identity.
Findings
Definitely does you good
The first artefact this report
will look at will be the 1930 print advertisement entitled Definitely does
you good (appendix A). As can be seen the poster shows two cartoon people whispering to one
another over a large jar of Marmite. The faces of these characters are
strangely contorted into the word ‘good’.
The creator of the ad is clearly written in a
number of positions on the advertisement, on the large jar in middle of the two
characters, on the hat of the male character and also in large bold print below
the image. The fact that the name of the product appears so frequently on the
ad is a clear indication that they are trying to make the name a memorable
phrase in the minds of the reader.
Underneath the large text that is the name we
see the slogan ‘Definitely does you good’.
Here we can see the first instance of advertisements
trying to persuade consumers rather simply stating the readily availability of
products.
This
advertisement clearly details Marmites first attempt at being a little
different from other advertisements during this period. The unusual images of
cartoon characters with word good incorporated into their face was different to
many of the other advertisements during that time period and was perhaps the
first example of the love/hate advertisements Marmite incorporated into their
campaigns.
My
mate/I hate marmite
The second advertisement this report will look
at will be the 1997 television advert My mate/I hate Marmite (1997). The
advert is actually split into two separate 30 second clips with very similar
style. During it’s time on television, the two clips would sandwich the other
adverts during the same break in television, making sure it was the first and
last advert that the audience would see.
The first of these two being My Mate Marmite,
which shows a montage of people going to the extreme lengths to enjoy their
time with Marmite.
The ad opens with an unseen person spreading
marmite over cheese of toast and tenderly stroking the product (Appendix B). This is an indication of
the tone of the advert; an homage to those who love Marmite.
The first of these clips is an elderly couple
enjoying a snack and a cup of tea. When the husband attempts the take the jar
of Marmite from his wife, she reacts quickly by hitting him over the head with
a saucepan (Appendix C).
The second clip of the montage is a baby being
rocked back on fourth by a motherly figure (Appendix D), all the while he trying to
reach for a jar of Marmite which is on the ledge behind them.
The next clip, possibly the most controversial
of the ad, shows a young male sitting in front of a television (Appendix E) that displays the image of
a jar of marmite. Whilst not showing anything too elicit, it does suggest that
this young man is pleasuring himself to the image.
A viewer may see themselves in the
advertisement. They may identify as someone who loves Marmite and may go to
some lengths to enjoy the products (though perhaps not the lengths in this
advert).
The second half of this video followed the
same structure however the clips show the extremes lengths people will go to
get rid of Marmite.
Opening with a similar image to the video
before, we see a knife spreading marmite over cheese on toast but rather than
the attentive stroke of the aforementioned clip, the knife continues to stab
the piece of bread (Appendix F).
The following clips show a baby trying to
avoid being fed a piece of marmite on toast by his mother (Appendix G). We are then show a man at
a dinner party who, after being fed an appetiser of something with Marmite,
promptly spits it onto the floor (Appendix H). What follows are similar
clips wherein people try drastic tactics to get rid of marmite. Such as using a
Marmite style voodoo doll (Appendix I), tying the jar to a brick and dropping it in a river (Appendix J) and finally using the jar
as a golf ball (Appendix K) to the extend it explodes on screen in front of us.
The My mate/I hate marmite clip uses
situations that an audience can relate to, so that they recall past memories of
times they’ve reacted similarly to Marmite. By using actors of different age
ranges they reach all possible ages of their target audience.
End Marmite Neglect
When Marmite sales had begun
decreasing, advertising agency Adam&Eve were set the challenge to
revitalise the Marmite image. Research had revealed that 1 in 10 Brits leave
their jar of Marmite neglected for over 3 months (Adam&EveDDB, 2013). Thus the End marmite neglect
ad was launched to remind Brits of their neglected jars that remain lingering
at the back cupboards.
The 2013 television advert clearly mimics an
animal rescue documentary to which it received over 300 complaints, many
stating that it belittled the hard work many welfare offices do on a day to day
basis.
In the 90 second advert, a team of Marmite
rescuers are seen entering the home of Britons in an attempt to rescue
neglected and abandoned jars of Marmite. They are greeted with angry and
confused members of the public as well as pleas of forgiveness and promise’s to
change. All the while throughout the ad there is a voice over explaining what
it is the team are doing, giving the ad a documentary style.
The advert
starts with the team arriving at a house on a busy estate. As they enter an
unseen voice is heard saying “this is a
bit of an intrusion” whilst members of the team are seen looking through
their cupboards. The jar in described as ‘stricken’
as its it taken to the rescue van and placed in a secure cage (appendix
M),
just like a rescued animal would be.
Whilst the
inanimate object of the jars are being described with very descriptive words,
unfortunate members of the public are referred to as ‘offenders’, a word defined as someone committing illegal or wrong
that causes problem. “The stronger the emotional charge, the more likely we are
to consciously reflect on the experience at the time it occurs and the more
memorable the event will be” (Hollis,
2012). Referring
to the 1 in 10 people who do neglect their jars of Marmite as ‘offenders’ would
elicit a response from the audience, unwilling to become part of this Marmite
offender culture.
The
advertisement then continues to show a clip of a young recruit finding what
appears to be a ‘baby’ jar of marmite at the back of the cupboard. The recruit
looks distressed as he is unable to take the lid off (appendix N) and carries it gently the car.
The advert
ends with a happy family taking home ajar of Marmite from the Marmite rehoming
centre (Appendix
O).
The End Marmite neglect ad aimed to influence
consumers to associate the Marmite brand with a light-hearted, friendly
company. They attempted to do so through humour and a story line that was easy
to relate to and therefore applicable to their wide target audience
The
members of the public whose houses are raided are of various ages including
young children, potentially indicating Marmites target audience being families.
Additionally to this, his use of frequent sarcastic remarks indicates the style
of humour appeals well to a classic British stereotype, again appealing well to
their UK target audience. Humour, as well as emotive language, plays a vital
part in making this advert memorable. “If
an ad is going to evoke a response that will last longer than a few seconds, it
must create a memorable feeling.” (Hollis, 2010).
Research
after the ad was broadcast revealed that “Emotionally
people can relate to the humour and scenarios shown and feel a strong
connection to the brand.” (Joubert, 2013).
Conclusion
Early advertising
campaigns had trumpeted Marmite’s health-giving properties, employing the early
slogan “good for you” in the 1930s. Here we can see the first instance of
advertisements trying to persuade consumers rather simply stating the readily
availability of products.
Brand
values are an important factor in creating a brand identity for Marmite. During
both world wars, Marmite was a staple item in every soldiers ration pack. This
led to feelings of familiarity for Marmite for both homemakers and war
veterans. As discussed before, Arvidsson suggests that it this kind of brand
value that have generated an attachment for many consumers during this time period.
By the 90s,
Marmite was a national institution, and was marketed as a traditional family
favourite; a feature that remains in contemporary Marmite advertising today.
The ‘tongue in cheek’ style of the ‘I hate/my mate Marmite’ advert began a new
trend in Marmite branding. Their advertising soon proved to stand out amongst
the array of other advertisements that littered televisions sets, just as their
product does against other savoury spreads.
When Marmites sales had started decreasing in
2013, they took this as an opportunity to revitalise the brand and create a
brand new campaign.
The End
Marmite Neglect ad was a 90-second parody of animal welfare documentaries
designed to put a smile on your face whether you like the product or not. The
advert does not poke fun at animal agencies rather it borrows their function as
a context, but that’s where the association end. Marmite had built on their already iconic
love/hate theme to create a memorable ad that placed the product at the
forefront of the public mind.
When asked about the ad a spokesperson from
Marmite stated "We believe we have
created an unmistakably Marmite ad - people will either love it or hate it and
they certainly won't forget it.” (HuffingtonPost, 2013). Marmite has created a campaign as divisive to audiences as
its weird tasting yeast-spread. With that, I’ll leave you with Marmite’s call
to action: Love it. Hate it. Just don’t forget it.
Originally marketed at the good for you source of
vitamin B, Marmite changed their tactics in the late 20th century as
a way to create memorable advertisements that would put the product at the
forefront of a consumers mind. Mimicking the love/hate taste of the product,
Marmite created ads that an audience would either love or hate but were sure to
get them thinking about the product.
Arvidsson, A.
(2005). Brands: A critical perspective. Journal
of consumer culture. 5 (2), 235-258.
adam&eveDDB. (2013). Case
studies. Available:
http://www.creativebrief.com/agency/work/20117/1963/marmite-advertising-digital-love-it-or-hate-it-by-adameveddb.
Last accessed 9th Dec 2014.
Bhatia, V. (2005). Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In:
Halmari, H & Virtanen, T Persuasion
Across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. 213-225.
Dyer, G (2007). Advertising
as communication. London: Routledge. 91.
Hearn, A. (2008). Meat, Mask, Burden . Journal of consumer culture. 8
(2), 197.
Hollis, N. (2010). Emotion
in Advertising: Pervasive, Yet Misunderstood. Available:
http://www.millwardbrown.com/docs/default-source/insight-documents/points-of-view/MillwardBrown_POV_EmotionInAdvertising.pdf.
Last accessed 11th Dec 2014.
Huffington Post. (2013). Marmite
TV Advert Draws Criticism And Praise For Mimicking Animal Cruelty Film. Available:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/07/marmite-tv-advert-complai_n_3719079.html.
Last accessed 11th Dec 2014.
Joubert, S. (2013). Marmite
‘End Neglect’. Available:
http://www.visioncritical.com/system/files/add%2Bimpact_VC_Marmite_Case-Study.pdf.
Last accessed 11th Dec 2014.
Lessa, L. (2005). Discursive Struggles Within Social Welfare: Restaging
Teen Motherhood. British
Journal of Social Work. 36 (2), 283-298.
Liu, J &
Le, T. (2013). Intertextual Techniques in Advertisements .International
Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research. 2 (1), 11
McStay, A. (2009). ‘The Consumer Society and Advertising,’ in
Long, P. & Wall, T. (eds.), Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context,
ch13, Harlow: Pearson Education, pp.424-446.
Paul Gee, J (2011). How
to do discourse analysis. New York: Routledge. 1.
Wernick, A (1991), Promotional
Culture: Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression, ch.8, London: Sage,
pp.181-198.
No comments:
Post a Comment