Who’s best at ads – The Guardian, or the SMH?
Welcome to compare and contrast, in which Dr Mumbo asks an entirely balanced question.
Below, you’ll see two current ads for newspapers. From the UK, one for The Guardian, then from Australia, one for the SMH. In the poll below, do tell Dr Mumbo which newspaper does it best. Because Dr Mumbo just isn’t sure.
Interestingly, the latter part of that ad (with the coffee) looks to have been shot in part of the Fairfax canteen/cafeteria area downstairs in the Pyrmont HQ.
That second ad reminded me of all the fun Monday meetings at Telstra when Amanda was there (but of course without the mandatory dancing)
Symbolic in the gulf between the two publishers in journalism and digital strategy
The Guardian has been able to maintain its strategy and smartly refresh one of the all time great commercials for today’s world – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg
Tim, do I sense your tongue firmly in your cheek? No contest.
It’s almost as if one was created by a marketer, whilst the other was created by a cretin.
With all fairness one is retail based designed to grab some quick sub revenue and the other is a brand piece,
Also, believe the operating economics of the guardian and fxj are completely different.
A bit unfair to compare the two.
No-way is that gronk a Herald reader. I just know he’s got the Telegraph behind that Herald.
The Guardian ad is one of the best I have ever seen (well, in recent time anyway). It has acutally revitlised my love for this industry, and I was getting pretty jaded to be honest.
Now only if we had that sort of imagination creativity in this country…
Let’s stop living in fear people!!!!!!!!
But The Guardian doesn’t tell us the price. Losers.
Hey, one’s a straight-up-and-down retail ad shot on the cheap for direct response TV and the other a brand epic. Guess which company is making money, though.
The Guardian ad is much better! More engaging.
The Herald ad is just poor…. but we mustn’t be too hard on them, times must be tough over there, the ad is full of their own Marketing team and filmed in their cafeteria…..
Woah… a bitchy comparison even by Mumbrella standards. The SMH thing’s a direct response sales offer; the Guardian’s a brand campaign.
Chalk and cheese. A brand ad with a ten fold budget compared with a direct response ad. One drives results one drives conversation.
Well that was 2.01 minutes of my life I won’t be getting back….lost track of what it was advertising. SMH much more warm and engaging. I’m subscribing as we speak.
We all know Mumbrella have a personal vendetta against Fairfax.. this is another ridiculous example
Give it a break Dr Mumbo!
All of us, Sienna? I hadn’t had the memo. What’s the personal vendetta about? I’d love to know…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
#Notmyrealname….cause it’s priceless. Herald’s not even worth the paper it’s printed on these days – hence the need to hark out the price.
More interesting is that the exact same idea as in the Guardian ad was presented to the Australian as part of the M&C Saatchi pitch last year. It made it all the way to the final decision stage and they chose not to go with it. Having now seen what they missed out on, I wonder if they have any regrets.
I hadn’t seen the classic Guardian TVC in a long time Kit, well done for surfacing. It’s several thousand light years ahead in thinking and execution of the new Guardian spot, and several million ahead of SMH. None of them should really be put side by side.
For people saying one ad is retail driven… You just don’t get it
In lauding the Guardian, and its embracing of the digital “future”, people always choose to forget that it is losing millions of pounds a year.
At one stage it was losing half a million quid A WEEK.
It’s propped up by a trust fund that is said to be running out.
Say what you like about Fairfax and its ailing fortunes … It still has black on its balance sheet.
An advertising site should be able to tell the different between a branding and a product ad.
They should not be directly compared.
What is relevant, however, is how the branding of The Guardian and SMH are carried through these ads in context to entire campaigns and across campaigns.
How well integrated are both ads into their overall branding and conversion strategies?
This can’t be answered with this direct comparison, it requires a broader look at the brand images and overall messaging across the two papers’ advertising over a longer period.
Also relevant would be looking at the impact of these ads on their respective markets (which, again are different – The Guardian and the SMH target different audiences in different countries with different competitive pressures).
Which ad worked best based on the goals of the advertising on a quantitative percentage basis? (noting again that goals would have differed so the only comparison appropriate is % of goal achieved).
As is evidenced by their approach to marketing, social media and journalism, one brand is lightyears ahead of the other. Nothing a good scandal couldn’t destroy though!
@Adam is right…..what’s with the “one is retail” argument?! in the minds of those watching them, one is good and one is shite, end of story.
Interesting how many marketing academics say its no-contest. Rob and Adam get it – if they are run on tele side by side I’d subscribe to The Guardian. Year after year. The SMH ad is typical of Australian advertising – shit idea with shit production then go to the pub and pat each other on the back for a job well done. They should stand up straight and pull their heads out of their own a**holes.
Everything is brand now…