The NextStage CRO analyzes a recent Volkswagen ad to see whether traumatizing your customers can be effective marketing.

A theme that often comes up in my work is active listening and active observing. The goal of both is to recognize the difference between what is seen and simply seeing what is there, to understand what is said and not just the words behind it. We've come close to these topics in Design by Groups and Design for the Client. This time out I'd like to discuss active listening and observing and use some recent TV spots and the responses they generated as examples.

17. 3. 1. 2. 7.
No, that's not a new form of IP address or another play on "The Da Vinci Code." It is a well-planned timing sequence that goes like this:

• In 17 seconds you've become comfortable and trusting enough to focus your attention where the advertiser wants it.
• In the next 3 seconds -- and because I've focused your attention -- I cause you to participate in a traumatic event.
• In the next 1 second, while you are still traumatized and hence vulnerable, I abandon you.
• In the next 2 seconds I return. Your attention is focused where I want it because you are vulnerable and seeking to ease the trauma I've placed you in, but because you're still traumatized whatever information I give you is confusing and that causes you to focus more.
• In the next 7 seconds I attempt to sell you something based on what I've just shown you. But I just gained your trust in order to traumatize and abandon you. Can I be trusted?

What I'm writing about are some recent Volkswagen commercials. People are driving along, talking, comfortable and engaging, and then they're hit by an SUV out of nowhere. Someone asked me, "Isn't that a terrorist tactic? You think you're safe and secure-- then bam! You could be dead, so you'd better always be on guard?"

Therapists working with abuse victims deal with a similar situation; someone you're suppose to trust is traumatizing you, asking you to continue to trust, retraumatizing you and repeating the cycle.

The therapist's goal is to get you out of the abusive relationship. VW's goal is to get you to buy a car.

Curious, I posed two questions:

1. Who is the audience for these TV Spots?
2. Are these TV spots effective?

All the while, I kept in mind some things that Rob Graham once told me about marketing:

1. If people can remember your commercial but not what is being sold in the commercial, then the commercial has failed.
2. You can tell by looking at an ad who the ad's promoters think the demographic is for a given media buy.
3. Any company actions or marketing which drives consumers away is debranding.

Q&A
I hadn't seen these commercials so I went online to find them. As the first people to tell me about them only referenced "car crash commercials," that's what I searched (Rob's A was already violated).

I needed to answer seven other questions in order to answer the original two:

1. Who is the audience for these TV Spots?
   1.1 - What age group do these appeal to?
   1.2 - Which gender does this appeal to?
   1.3 - Who is most likely to make a purchase based on these spots?
2. Are these TV Spots effective?
   2.1 - Who can most easily understand these spots?
   2.2 - Who will most likely act upon these spots?
   2.3 - What are the strongest messages to consumers?
   2.4 - What is the single concept these spots convey to consumers?

The questions were answered by analyzing the commercials, the Volkswagen website, various comments I found during my online search and talking to people in non-test environments (sports bars, malls, coffee shops) who either had just seen or previously seen the commercials. I awarded one point each time an analysis of the commercials and the VW website matched the analysis of the comments, offline and on.

The results don't look good. A perfect score would be seven out of seven. As of this writing, the TV spots are scoring a one out of seven.

But were they working?
This doesn't mean the commercials are ineffective. A USAToday article indicates the TV spots are creating some interest.

But the comments in that article are themselves of interest. Art Spinella, an automotive industry analyst with CNW Marketing commented, "the vast majority of consumers are going to be turned off by it, and they will take VW off their shopping lists." In contrast, Angelique Domangue, a marketing specialist in Baton Rouge, purchased because of the ads.

These two responses interest me because my analysis showed that Ms. Domangue, who is 33 according to the article, is in the target demographic for both the website and the commercial. Mr. Spinella isn't. Direct, positive online commentary was primarily done by individuals identifying themselves in the 25 to 34 year old demographic. Negative commentary came from both in and out of that demographic.

Lots of people remembered their response to the car crash but not the brand, failing Rob's item A. There is a larger demographic responding to the ad than is targeted by the ad (item B). Sometimes having a larger audience response than intended is a good thing, sometimes it isn't. Most responses were negative (item C).

Car crash commercials aren't new. Many companies have used them effectively. BMW has a similarly themed commercial with a significant difference: guard rails, dumpsters and the like are crumpling and buckling as a BMW drives past them, never touching them. The driver continues on, safe and secure, while the world is in chaos around her. I don't own a BMW or a VW.

I'm not in VW's target demographic and am in BMW's. I'd prefer to believe I'm safe and secure in my car and can go merrily along as the rest of the world is in chaos around me. I don't want to think of myself going through the trauma of an accident.

Are my reactions blind luck or good targeting?

Learning to Listen, Learning to See
The take-aways from this exercise are simple enough; my research indicates a disconnect between campaign and audience. The question becomes, "what was the campaign's goal?" To start some buzz? That was probably successful, except most of the chatter was debranding, which means unsuccessful. To get people to the car company's site? I went looking for the ads, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one, except I couldn't find them. If my experience was the norm then my expectations weren't met and I -- and others like me -- left unsatisfied...

These commercials are scheduled to run their course by mid-May of 2006. Was that part of their strategy? Air them too long and viewers become numb to their effect or perhaps raise a ruckus forcing VW to pull them. But now you focus on any VW commercial you happen upon, wondering if this one has a crash. You watch for it because you never know when it's coming.

Good terrorist strategy.

I'm not privy to VW's marketing strategy, and I hope everyone reading this appreciates that this was just an exercise for the purposes of discussion. The question, "do we trust the message the spots are trying to instill?" isn't the question that needs to be answered. All that's really important is that you have the discussion and mention the company's brands each and every time you have it. The ads gain your trust then traumatize you without warning. But now you're looking for them. You're being branded.

That is brilliant, strategic marketing. The end question isn't about trust. They got you to listen. What did you see?

(My thanks to NextStage Global's Dr. Cindy LaChapelle for help researching this column.)

For those of you in the Boston area, I'll be presenting research on New Education Paradigms at the Boston KM Forum on Aug. 17, 2006.