Making a dollar out of 15 "sense"

Before you read this, watch the clip. . . OK...Huh? This commercial for Cadbury Chocolates by Fallon London won the Grand Prix for Film at Cannes this year. Well, technically it shared the honors with the Halo 3 Believe spot (the first time in Cannes history that there has ever been a tie). The point is that I don't get the point and I feel as if this is one of those things that is supposed to be brilliant because you don't understand it. It's awesome because it's so far out that it could be connected to the product in any abstract way. Who am I to question the judges at Cannes? If there is one thing that working at Zubi has taught me is that I should question everything (or PUSH as they would say). I don't think I'm out of line for questioning the strategy behind this.

Keith Reinhard was recently inducted into the advertising hall of fame for his amazing contribution to the ad world (including coming up with the taglines "like a good neighbor, State Farm is there" and "You deserve a break today" for McDonalds). He said that he believed ROI, Return on Investment, to be an acronym for something else. He said ROI meant Relevant, Original and Intelligent. He believes that if an ad campaign accomplishes all three then it will achieve success. There are a lot of ideas that sound terrific but if they are not relevant to the strategy in the brief then the idea is useless for the client. At the end of the day we must sell a product.

My problem with the Cadbury ad is that it does not prove to be relevant for me. It is original without a doubt and the intelligence behind it is subjective as to whether you think it is or is not relevant to the strategy. It seems to me like the brief must have said that the single most persuasive idea for increasing trial of Cadbury chocolates is to have shock value. The commercial is very shocking and entertaining. The fact that so many people are arguing about the commercial's meaning has naturally raised awareness of Cadbury as a brand. Even then, I don't know how many people actually say "Hey have you seen the latest Cadbury commercial?" as opposed to "Have you seen the commercial with the drumming gorilla?" Let's be serious. What does a drumming gorilla have to do with a chocolate bar?

I can make the case that drumming gives this gorilla pleasure and that Cadbury chocolate will give me pleasure. I can make this simple connection and the message would be simple but the interpretation is so difficult. Maybe it won the Grand Prix because it is so impossible to forget. The visual of the commercial has penetrated my mind. I probably can't hear Phil Collins' 'In the Air Tonight' without thinking of this commercial and then thinking of Cadbury. The truth is that watching this commercial makes me want to go get a drum set not buy a chocolate, and in that lies the problem.

I'm a fan of leaving things open for interpretation. I like analyzing the concepts behind music and film but as advertisers I think the message must be clear. This commercial is very vague. It could mean whatever you want it to mean and I think people are making it seem better than it is because of its ambiguity. Don't get me wrong, I like the commercial. It makes me laugh and usually puts me in a good mood, but I don't see the link and I personally feel the link is important.