Ray Ban Will Do Anything to Keep You Watching

Comments

Steve and Angela, And let me guess: this latest video is so hot and so viral the agency had to send you a e-mail press release to make sure you knew about it. Just like they did last time. Ugh. This kind of thing (attention-getting for attention-getting's sake) just seems like so much wannabe-ad guy thinking. The kind of thing a student would think up and then feel like they were really onto something. Like, "I know, what if we ran a print ad with a big headline that just said "F*ck." Sure, it's juvenile and irrelevant, but it got your attention, didn't it?" Uh, yeah, I guess so. Then again, so does stepping in dog poop, but it doesn't do much else for me. Or for a brand. And no, the fact that we're discussing the lame idea in question right now does not equate to "the idea worked" or even "increased exposure." It just means you did something lame and someone with a few spare moments who's tired of this kind of easlily-created insta-crap called you on it. But hey, it's on YouTube, so that makes it really current, really cutting edge. For last year. The good thing about YouTube is that any dillweed can post content there. The bad thing is that any dillweed in Advertising can. Let's hope that last point changes soon and they start charging brands for all the free airtime. Sure, Adrants will get fewer email press releases once that happens. But at least the ones you do get will be about actual campaigns instead of lame fluff.

That headline should read:

Ray Ban Creatives Will Do Anything To Appear Creative

Why so anti these films? I think this one if pretty lame, and so is the weightlifter chick filmed backwards solving the rubix cube ("desperately hilarious" as I once read a Frank Zappa album described as). But I think "Streaker" and "Guy Catches Sunglasses On Face" are amazing. And I think it will have an impact on sales at some point. I live in Huntington Beach - I've surfed my whole life - and I don't know a single surfer or cool kid who would even consider buying Ray-Bans. Hell, I don't think Ray-Bans have been cool since the mid-80's. Full dinosaur brand. Along comes "Guy Catches Sunglasses" - two million views in two weeks. What's the premise? Two funny, hip guys, playing around with their Ray-Ban sunglasses to the beat of a funky, catchy little riff. My first thought - before I realized it was viral marketing - was that "Hey, it looks like Ray-Bans have become retro hip. Right on...they're a classic look." I even thought to myself that I'd love to ditch my cheaply made Von Zipper Hawkeye Pierce aviators and go buy some real, old school Ray-Bans. Meanwhile, sunglass companies spend a fortune so that Tom Cruise will wear their shades for 30 seconds in a single movie. These viral spots - probably $10-$50K a piece, max. Some will be duds, some will rock. It's getting Ray-Bans out in front of people again, being worn by a variety of interesting characters and people, in all types of different settings and situations. More importantly it's putting Ray-Bans in a cool light. Which is a light they haven't been in in 20 years. And I won't be surprised if I see the groms down at the pier wearing them this fall.

Why so anti these films? I think this one if pretty lame, and so is the weightlifter chick filmed backwards solving the rubix cube ("desperately hilarious" as I once read a Frank Zappa album described as). But I think "Streaker" and "Guy Catches Sunglasses On Face" are amazing. And I think it will have an impact on sales at some point. I live in Huntington Beach - I've surfed my whole life - and I don't know a single surfer or cool kid who would even consider buying Ray-Bans. Hell, I don't think Ray-Bans have been cool since the mid-80's. Full dinosaur brand. Along comes "Guy Catches Sunglasses" - two million views in two weeks. What's the premise? Two funny, hip guys, playing around with their Ray-Ban sunglasses to the beat of a funky, catchy little riff. My first thought - before I realized it was viral marketing - was that "Hey, it looks like Ray-Bans have become retro hip. Right on...they're a classic look." I even thought to myself that I'd love to ditch my cheaply made Von Zipper Hawkeye Pierce aviators and go buy some real, old school Ray-Bans. Meanwhile, sunglass companies spend a fortune so that Tom Cruise will wear their shades for 30 seconds in a single movie. These viral spots - probably $10-$50K a piece, max. Some will be duds, some will rock. It's getting Ray-Bans out in front of people again, being worn by a variety of interesting characters and people, in all types of different settings and situations. More importantly it's putting Ray-Bans in a cool light. Which is a light they haven't been in in 20 years. And I won't be surprised if I see the groms down at the pier wearing them this fall.

"My first thought - before I realized it was viral marketing - was that "Hey, it looks like Ray-Bans have become retro hip. Right on...they're a classic look."" OK, Colonel, exactly how long have you been affiliated with RayBan or their agency? :-) Seriously, though, if you really thought those things, it's because you're old enough to remember what RBs look like, hadn't seen them in a while and were surprised to see them online or anywhere. All of which have nothing to do with the videos. I think this is what bugged the first commenter: treating these easily-dropped "films" like they actually communicate other than just being "out there" as you say. No one who didn't already know RB would know the glasses were RBs. Especially not a young dude. Remember, it was "Guy catches sunglasses..", not "Guy catches RBs".... Hey it's fashion, so its not like you've got a logical argument to make no matter where you advertise, but if they were a dinosaur brand, it's because they weren't advertising, period--geurilla, mass media, Tom Cruise's face, or otherwise--not because they weren't on YouTube.