Saturday, August 16, 2008

╠ Bonds - Hi and Lo ╣

Despite ending up with the ad I felt I knew the least about as the clear winner with 9 of 11 votes I feel quite good about how this is all going. In a way I am actually proud to have to delve into the one I felt I would be the weakest on for experience sake. Also to get over 10 votes really just blew my mind. I really didn't expect to get that high within months of starting this so to break 10 on the second poll is just instant win. I really do have to thank those that have helped me with this, Kibble for looking over my comics before I submit them, Zac who as a marketing blogger himself has been very helpful and also inspirational to a newbie such as myself and of course Rachael who basically is the reason for this blog to start and even the one behind the idea of including comics. Also to anyone else who has helped along the way or left comments, thankyou.

Now onto the semi naked women! (Not a line I thought I'd ever say)

Bonds - Hi and Lo

First off I have to point out I didn't realize how many close up bum shots there were in these sorts of ads. I'm currently on capped internet so Youtube stops to continue loading and the amount of times it stops simply on a rear is quite amazing...

The reason I was first worried about beaking down this ad was because I was thinking of it as a single ad and not thinking about the background behind it. Bonds has a history with ads that are outside the norm and there is a very good reason for this.

If you think about the ads in a different light and think about what other people have done when it comes to underwear ads and you find the options are pretty limited. It's usually either something saying 'These are the most comfortable underwear that you will ever wear' or 'wear this and your chances of having sex will go up'. The first option sort of works at first but wears off through peoples lives once they realize that underwear in itself don't really vary that much comfort wise. No matter which underwear you get odds are you'll face moments of discomfort since by nature underwear is about confining sensitive areas. As for the latter, the problem with this is that first off how gullible do you have to be in order to believe that underwear will be the decider for if someone has sex with you. Personally I think if you find a way to show your underwear before the decision is made then you've probably done something wrong.

Another point of these sexy underwear ads is that they're marketed to the opposite gender in the sense that you should buy it for your significant other. The issue with this is that I'm not sure about other males but I personally don't see myself as the type to buy ladies lingerie, first because of the looks I would get at the counter and second because I'm not the same up there and down there so I wouldn't have the confidence to enforce that this is the right underwear for her. Then there's the issue of girls buying for males. This I have less insight on but I believe it isn't that effective either because the main fact is that men don't care about their underwear that much. You could buy them some nice and shiny underwear for them, but they'd be just as happy with a pair of kmarts. I believe women by nature are more rational with such decisions so they wouldn't be able to justify spending the extra bit to just make their special man friend that little bit specialler.

So when it comes down to having just these options then you can understand where Bonds is coming from. Simply trying to advertise underwear without sticking to the old cliches. For those of you who haven't seen the ads predating this one here's some that I managed to struggle my way to on my capped internet


I like this ad because it manages to get the cliches across while still being different. They're doing all different types of dances thus promoting the versatility that the underwear can remain comfortable through. Also they chose nice looking girls enforcing the sexy bit as well. But all this is subliminal. All you're seeing is girls enjoying being in their underwear.


Another add enforcing the versatility whilst comfort remains and again with cute girls. However again all you see is girls enjoying themselves in their underwear. The clever bit of this ad though is the last second. It just looks like an off hand shot outside of the normal ad however it ads show much because it reinforces just how much fun these girls are having in their underwear, hitting all of the subliminal notes hard.

Davenport - Pie Fight

Now this one isn't actually Bonds and I actually spent ages looking for it because I thought it actually was Bonds and it was the one that I remembered best out of all of them. Much to my surprise I found out it was a Davenport ad. Bonds seems to have put such a monopoly on out there underwear ads that the one I remembered best out of all of them was attributed to them. This ad shows how Bonds have improved on an ad such as this by having Bonds big and bold on every bit of underwear. This is a perfect example of the impotance of labelling your products.

Now back onto Hi and Lo. The reason this ad works is because of the WTF factor that everyone is so confused about. You hear the scream at the start and then are simply glued to the screen wondering about what exactly you are watching. The power in this is that your mind is more active than for the average so whenever you see the Bonds tag on the underwear it is absorbed directly in as opposed to being as easily ignored as some other messages. The bonds tag is in almost every shot so that's a lot of times you're absorbing the bonds name.

The reason why this is all importnat is because of brand awareness. Underwear at least for me is something that I don't get too emotionally involved in. I don't know who makes underwear. In fact when looking at the davenport ad I was like 'Oh right, they do make underwear'. People are more inclined to purchase something from the brand name most prominant in their mind. This is because of the mindset that we assume that since we have heard more about it, the more worth hearing about it is.

So this is the conclusion I've come to. There's no secret meaning behind what they're doing apart from the obvious hi and lo connotation with the game they're playing. The true point behind this is so simply first off show that their underwear is comfortable considering they are able to do such an exerting activity in that underwear while not showing any discomfort. Secondly that the girls are nice looking so that you think you would be nice looking in them too. Then finally to spam the name bonds so that when you go underwear shopping Bonds is in your evoked set of main options you would consider when buying underwear. Personally next time I go underwear shopping...which as a male will probably be quite a while away, I will be considering Bonds, how about you?

I hope some of you found this at least a bit insightful and I hope I haven't overlooked anything. Also if any of you know of any ads you'd like to see broken down give me a buzz because this week is going to include losers from the previous weeks. The contenders this


Kibbleking said...

As a person who actually sells this product, I have to say that the Bonds ads are probably having a good effect - more women buy the comfy, (I'd assume well made and long lasting) Bonds about the same than our regular store brand, even though they are more expensive and we have greater variety in store (men seem to buy only Bonds), not to mention in comparison to our fancy, lacy stuff or even designer collections like the Collette Dinigan stuff we are stocking at the moment.

I personally like the ads ^^ they're fun to watch and not at all sleazy, which is something that really turns me off underwear ads. You can have classy, subtle sex appeal without making the ad look like porn, but I do think that these ads reinforce the casual and comfy aspects of the underwear, which you'd pointed out.

Tannie said...

Wow. You make me feel like I actually hit the spot to a degree. I was lacking a bit of confidence expecting someone to say that I ws a bit wrong and there was a bigger bolder point to be had. But if you have actual research pointing out that I may be onto something well woo for me not blowing it out my arse :P