claudine, jodie and carmina tv30s - lactum tv spot the schizoid and repressed tv ad. part 1

this tv spot is some kind of a repressed tv ad where it seems it thinks it's a superior product that seem to want to position itself on a superiority claim but it doesn't, either intentionally or unintentionally. this indecision has resulted to an ad where it seems to shoot itself in the foot in more ways than one.

this indecision is also shown in using not only one, but three celebrity endorsers - claudine, jodie and carmina and yet they are not prominently featured in the ad where they appear only at the end, the last 2 to 3 seconds. it's not just the matter of not being able to make the most of the multi-million peso talent fees they had to pay the three endorsers, but more than that why have celebrity endorsers in the ad when they are not used properly? endorsers are chosen supposedly for their pulling power and the power to persuade but with the very limited time they are used in the ad and worse, the story in the ad don't even relate to their lives as celebrities, why use them at all? do they believe in the power of the endorsers they chose or not?

let's be honest here - will it really make a big difference, a loss in sale power if they removed the few seconds that the 3 endorsers appeared in the commercial in the last 2 to 3 seconds of the ad? will the audience miss anything in substance or sale?

99% of the ad feature ordinary upscale moms who make an effort to do their best for their kids - giving their kids not only the most but also giving extras on top of the most. these are moms who wake up early, who know that being a mom is difficult, cook the food and make sure their kids eat properly by serving them even fruits. and these moms choose lactum for that same reason because not only does lactum give their kids all the essential nutrients in the food chain, it has extras helping kids get 100% nourished. the visuals in the ad seem to be straightforward except that part where we see a mom putting a rubber ducky in a child's bath tub (very upscale! a bathroom with a bathtub!). i don't get what that meant or how that relates to moms wanting to give their kids the most plus more. was the ad saying i don't just give my kids a bath, but also playtime during bath time? why is that relevant? and why is that good?

the scenes they chose to depict the character of the moms as being very particular about choosing "the best and plus" are weak. they are not eloquent in communicating the characters of the mom. the power of the ad rests on the kind of moms that choose lactum but they have failed to make a compelling story to depict the characters of the moms they want to portray.

part of the problem could be length of time available to do so. it escapes me why they had to show three moms (i actually know the reason why, but more on that later) in the ad. having three moms prevented them to tell a more compelling and complete story on the moms. while time is obviously a factor, the biggest reason why this failed is the kind of copywriting they put into the ad. it appears to me that is the toughest challenge for the writers. the product freight is stock lactum - we have seen that in other lactum ads before. but the choices 0f waking up early, setting a toy in the bath and cooking food and serving meals with fruits are hohum depictions of what they want to convey. i don't think there's really enough time to allow the ideas to gel and properly communicated. all that they had was a sentence or two to be able to personify the lactum mom.

the only reason why i think they chose to have three moms in the ad is that they have 3 celebrity endorsers! hahahaha! (yup, that' real funny as it's really a very contrived reason.) it's probably a lame attempt to communicate 3 moms, 3 stories and 3 endorsers. but are we to believe that each of the three celebrity endorsers are represented in those three very lame scenes?

i get the feeling that choosing the right depictions of the lactum mom were the biggest battle the creative team had on this storyboard and ev eventually with the client. i bet they spent so much time with multiple revisions to get those 3 right. but in the end, they really were just bad writing. i get the feeling that a copywriter who just graduated from college 3 months ago wrote those scenes. or as they were revising the storyboard a hundredth time, the ad agency gave up in desperation and just agreed to whatever the client wanted to put in the ad.

this is a pity as giving flesh to the lactum mom is the foundation and core idea of this ad. it's probably the consumer insight that they extracted from some research but it's delivery is all lost on bad copywriting and too little time to do anything meaningful with it.

to be continued......