“Colgate OHM Got Zero” TV commercial used Feature, News and Popularity Advertising Approaches, perhaps, all at the same time.
- Feature approach or appeal was implemented because it tells the prevailing characteristic of Colgate, which is giving zero cavities. However, that message was being conveyed by giving the news to the consumers that they could actually celebrate or commemorate the feature of Colgate because they made the OHM (Oral Health Month), also wherein consumers can have free dental check-up and samples of the product. By that news, the commercial also made use of the Popularity Appeal for the reason that it is intensely extended nationwide and therefore, Colgate may have achieved recognition from a large population.
- It is rational because most of the approaches used were informational and it brought up messages based on reason. The commercial also expressed the significance of the product, Colgate, by using the hand sign language presenting the number “0”, where the “Zero Cavity” characteristic of Colgate was shown.
- In my opinion, the commercial could also mix up with a little bit of consumers’ testimonials, while they are conducting the free dental check-ups and giving the free samples, so that those who would be watching could actually see the news in action. Maybe, they could do the commercial live.
- As for my previous discussions, the message being conveyed to me is that I should participate and join the events happening in the OHM, because I would also experience zero cavities, like the people in the commercial. The message was conveyed to me by their hand sign language, the setting of the commercial and by telling the news about OHM through the doctor’s words.
Law of Duality
We all know that Colgate is competing with Close-Up. I would admit that these two brands are my two preferred brand in terms of choosinh toothpastes. In our country, they are both on the same level of popularity, so they strongly compete with each other. They probably have been sharing the same market ever since they have been both contending. If Colgate seems to be leading, Close-Up will not allow it. Close-Up will still do something in order for Colgate not be too distant from them, because they have been known as two leading brands of toothpastes. They have the biggest market instead of other brands like Hapee and Beam. Why? Because people cannot tolerate to patronize more brands, even at the same time, and these people will not waste time choosing on many brands, it has to be two strong choices, just like Colgate and Close-Up.
|Colgate can be compared to Close-Up in a positive way and consumers will tend to buy it.||However, Colgate can also be contrasted with Close-Up and consumers will tend to be confused on what to buy, and might end up not choosing Colgate.|
|Colgate can be the first choice.||However, it can also be the second choice.|
|One can be on lead, even on less distant, like Colgate.||The other can be also distant below, like Close-Up.|
Law of the Mind
People are often mistaken on using the brand name, Colgate, as a general name for toothpastes here in the Philippines. It is because toothpaste is associated already with the brand (Colgate) itself. But it happened, maybe because of what the people’s mind is thinking and associating it with. Colgate managed to change the minds of people and made them think that Colgate is just a toothpaste – that is one disadvantage. Another drawback of this law is that when a consumer buys at a sari-sari store, he will say “Pabili nga po ng colgate, yung Close-Up.”, which is wrong. Instead of the law making Colgate a highly – known product, it is just known generally for being a common noun and not a proper noun. It is also difficult for Colgate to cope up with this, but maybe they might think of it as an enormous success in winning the market, because all they can ever hear from people buying in stores is Colgate. My perception could also be on about Law of Focus, but it might be far-fetched.
Tell me what you think. xxx