Or if cheating legal doesn’t work, cheat illegal instead
This ad by The Furnace must have seemed like a great idea to Skins, before they had to pull their sponsorship of the Melbourne Storm because of the salary cap scandal.
Still, it is more than a year since Skins’ advertising last caused it embarrassment.
Hi Tim,
Firstly, thanks for putting the ad up – expensive audience to reach usually!
You’ve obviously understood this as something that backfires against the brand (and probably something that might generate some response from Adland, so well done on that front!). It’s interesting, because those of us close to the brand don’t see it that way, so I thought I might give you an insider’s view.
Long before it was a brand, the people behind Skins have always believed in delivering real substance. It’s cost them a lot in terms of effort and money, but it has meant that they’ve done the hard yards in terms of the science behind how to maximize the benefits of compression. The result is unique Peer Review level research – the most rigorous and expensive level of scientific research – that proves Skins and their exclusive formula of gradient compression actually do deliver real benefits; like a 37% reduction in lactic acid build up after sustained exercise through improved venous return.
In formulating the overall strategy for the Skins brand last year, it was clear that we should reflect this belief in ‘substance beyond the logo’. Combining this with the clear product benefits and a desire to talk about the true spirit of fierce competition, we created the “Cheat legal” campaign. It’s obviously designed to be provocative, but it does draw a clear line in the sand as to what we regard as acceptable.
When we were creating the campaign, one of the key questions considered was how we would behave if we came across a situation like Melbourne Storms’ current woes. We all concluded that in a world of increasingly cynical people looking for more authentic brands, and a belief that brands can no longer just claim a positioning they have to live them, then it would actually present a rare opportunity for a brand to show that it was willing to stand up for its principles despite its obvious costs to us – a sense that a principle isn’t a principle until it costs you something.
Naturally we hoped it would never come to this – and no one could wish the current situation on the fans of any footy club, let alone ones that have been carving out a sport in a ‘hostile’ territory – but given that it has, Skins is happy to show that it is willing to stand by its principles.
Tony Singleton
MD, The Furnace
I agree with Tony’s analysis above, and would direct interested readers to the SKINS website http://www.skins.net/en/who_we.....eases.aspx where SKINS has taken the unusual step of publishing the contract between it and the Storm that specifies the company’s requirement that the team stay on the right side of the line in competing fiercely. Fierce competition is great; cheating isn’t. It’s really that simple.
Its not that often that we see brands with principals and even less often that they live by them. Well done Skins