Purpose of Report:
The 22 Laws of marketing identified by Ries and Trout are considered the fundamental principles of marketing. To devise and produce a successful marketing strategy, understanding and obeying the Laws is vital. This can be demonstrated by contemporary examples of two advertisements used by mobile network operator T Mobile at the 2014 Super Bowl.
The purposes of this report are:
1) Using the relevant Laws:
i) To analyse the strategy of each advertisement
ii) To analyse the execution of each strategy
iii) To compare the effectiveness of each advertisement
The report will reiterate the importance of understanding and adhering to the Laws. The result of this report will be to confirm that effectiveness of advertisements is proportional to successful execution of marketing strategy; this is dependent on successful understanding and obeying of the Laws.
Advertisement One – Strategy analysis
T-Mobile’s marketing strategy is to increase sales by encouraging consumers to select T-Mobile over rivals in a competitive market by labelling long-term mobile contracts as ‘limiting’ and ‘restrictive’ to individual choice and freedom. T-Mobile will end such limitations by offering to buy out consumers from existing contracts. It is a strategy which portrays T-Mobile as the network operator which understands the individuality and uniqueness of each customer through a dismissal of fixed contracts as ‘limited’.
The Law of Focus is present as T-Mobile seeks to own a word in the consumer’s mind, that being ‘no contract’. Ries and Trout (1993: 26) state this is the ‘most powerful marketing concept’ especially when combined with the ‘halo effect’ whereby the creation of one benefit to the consumer creates others. In this case, T-Mobile seeks to benefit the consumer by buying them out of their current contract. The halo effect in turn provides a shorter, less restrictive contract, reduced contract expenses and a new contract where the consumer is a ‘free agent.’
The Law of Attributes is then invoked, in that a company must seek out the opposite attribute to the market leader to focus its marketing efforts. Rival Verizon for example has ‘long term contracts for discounted mobiles’ as its attribute; T-Mobile has seized the opposite attribute and dramatized its value.
In addition, the Law of Perceptions is present, in that marketing is the battle of perceptions and not products (1993:18). T-Mobile aim to manipulate consumer perceptions of contracts by stating long-term contracts are limited. This has the potential of following the ‘everyone knows’ principle: everyone knows fixed contracts are limited, so everyone knows T-Mobile provides greater freedom because of their focus of ‘no contract.’
Advertisement One – Strategy execution assessment
The advertisement cleverly executes the marketing strategy. T-Mobile hired ex-NFL footballer Tim Tebow to demonstrate life without a fixed contract is less restricted and thus more liberating. Tebow argues through various funny scenarios, including helping a woman during labour, that without a contract he is a free agent. This combined with repetition, both spoken and visual of ‘no contract’ enables the Law of Focus to be adequately executed as this is the phrase at the centre of the advertisement and thus in the minds of the viewers. The concluding sequence deploys the ‘#nocontract’ hashtag which reiterates the principle focus of the marketing strategy as well as providing a marketing platform for T-Mobile on social media which is especially active during the Super Bowl.
The Law of Attributes is present in how T-Mobile dramatizes the value of its opposite attribute through humorous dramatization on screen, e.g. Tebow being able to present a Peace Plan at a Global Summit. The humour cleverly emphasises the benefits of the attribute, namely less restriction and greater freedom for consumers.
The Law of Perceptions is delivered in an intriguing manner. T-Mobile was endorsed by a celebrity, a famous athletic, but one who failed to make the team list that year. T-Mobile cleverly manipulates the perception of ‘failure’ into one of ‘opportunity’ by presenting the renewal of a fixed contract as detrimental to the consumer. Tebow is able to portray the benefits of being a free agent. This emphasises the benefits of not having a contract and so encourages viewers to take up T-Mobile on its offer to buy them out of their current fixed contracts so they too can benefit from being free of limitations.
Advertisement Two – Strategy analysis
The marketing strategy present in this advertisement is similar to the first. T-Mobile aims to increase sales by labelling fixed contracts as limited and offering to buy consumers out of their current contracts to free them from limited contracts. However, there are differences in the identifiable Laws.
The Law of Focus is again present but the focus phrase present is that of ‘contract killer’. T-Mobile again seek to own a word in the consumer’s mind, only it adopts this focus to emphasize the role it will play in freeing consumers from tiresome fixed contracts which are limited. The Halo effect is invoked, promising benefits such as reduced expenses and greater freedom.
The Law of the Opposite is also evident. T-Mobile has identified the strength of its rivals as being promoters of fixed, long term contracts and thus uses this as an opportunity to exploit this as a weakness. It does so by presenting itself as the alternative network operator, the different network operator which knows customers value relaxed contracts. This combines with the Law of Attributes in that T-Mobiles seeks to seize the opposite attribute to its competitors and dramatize its value. By branding itself a ‘contract killer’ and not a ‘contract maker’ like rivals such as Verizon and AT&T it envisages itself as providing value for money to consumers through both short and long term actions: buying out existing contracts and consequently saving money on fixed contract payments in the future.
Advertisement Two – Strategy execution assessment
Again, the marketing strategy is executed in a clever manner. Instead of employing actors or celebrities to sell its product via a carefully scripted and directed video production, T-Mobile uses a basic ‘writing only’ advertisement. Its very simplicity is its effectiveness. The only colours are T-Mobile brand colours, the words are gently paced and the backing track is a song used in Disney’s Robin Hood; perhaps a subtle message that T-Mobile is setting itself up as the network operator that gives back to customers instead of takes, in comparison to its rivals.
The Law of Focus addressed from the beginning through to the end. The use of ‘we killed the long-term contract… And we’ll kill yours’ reiterates the ‘contract killer’ focus. The extremity of the word ensures its longevity in the consumer’s mind. It also suggests a witty wordplay, from ‘contract killer’ in the sense of a hired killer to ‘killing’ a fixed contract. The viewer is surrounded with the message that T-Mobile provides the solution to restrictive and limited contracts.
The advertisement cleverly exploits as a weakness the strengths of T-Mobile’s rivals through simply constructed sentences that have a powerful impact. Stating ‘wireless contracts suck… You know it… We know it’ is a direct attack on the rivals which take pride in their long-term contracts. T-Mobile presents itself as the alternative, better network operator by further encouraging viewers to ‘break up with [their] crummy carrier and we’ll pay for it’. The use of the words ‘break up’ create the image of a ending bad relationship in the mind of the viewer, again emphasising the use of the Law of the Opposite.
The Law of Attributes is executed through humour and repetition which adds to the dramatization of the value of T-Mobile’s new attribute. It claims the opposite attribute to its rivals’ – as a ‘contract killer’ - after attacking them, and then interjects, ‘we’re not on our 4th margarita’. This is a clever tactic to illustrate the uniqueness of their offer. By presenting it as ‘crazy’, it emphasises its different, refreshing stance to its rivals.
Comparison of advertisement effectiveness.
Similar strategies were executed through the understanding of different Laws, meaning both advertisements are effective through the execution of these strategies by different techniques influenced by the difference in Laws-influence.
Advertisement One focused on the strategy of increasing overall sales through encouraging consumers to switch network operators and end their fixed term contracts, doing so would mean T-Mobile bought them out of their existing contracts. At the centre of the strategy was the argument that fixed contracts are limited and T-Mobile would provide freedom for its customers through not providing such contracts. This is demonstrated in their focus phrase of ‘no contract’. In comparison, Advertisement Two also focused on the strategy of dismissing fixed contracts and offering to buy out consumers’ existing contracts. However, the basis for this strategy was that of T-Mobile being a ‘contract killer’ – it would ‘kill’ limited contracts for the good of its customers.
Both strategies involved scrutinising rival network operators and T-Mobile then positioning itself as being different and therefore better to its rivals. Again there is a difference between both advertisements. Advertisement One solely invokes Law of Attributes as a means of presenting T-Mobile’s opposite attribute as the better attribute whereas Advertisement Two combines this Law with the Law of the Opposite. This Law provides for a more robust attack on rivals.
Advertisement One used humorous scenes to dramatize the value behind T-Mobile’s attribute of ‘no contract’ and emphasized the benefits such as less restriction cleverly to fulfil the Law of Attributes. Tebow was used as both a metaphor and real-life example of the free agent, who is not confined or restricted to strict contractual terms for X period of time. It was also extremely effective in using the Law of Perceptions in an interesting manner through manipulating a ‘failure’ into a ‘success’ or ‘opportunity for freedom’. This perception of opportunity for less limitation combined with the Law of Focus in ‘no contract’ as well delivered and ensured T-Mobile was distinguished from its rivals as an alternative.
Whilst relying only on words on a brand-coloured background, Advertisement Two is arguably the most effective. The gently paced words were timed well with the backing track, the sentences were simply constructed yet each word was meaningful. As such, it is subtle and clever in its execution of marketing strategy. The Law of Focus was invoked in the phrase ‘contract killer’ which is more memorable and dramatic than ‘no contract’ and complements the Law of Opposite in exploiting the strengths of T-Mobile’s rivals as weaknesses. This is more effective in dismissing fixed term contracts as limited and harsh to customers than Advertisement One aided by the use of words such as ‘wireless contracts suck’ and ‘break up with your crummy carrier’. The latter especially creates a strong mental image in the viewer’s mind, that of ending a bad relationship – T-Mobile is therefore setting itself up as the better relationship to enter, the alternative network operator to be with.
--
References:
Ries, A. and Trout, J., The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing (Harper Collins, 1993)