The Ad that Ruined Skittles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_cj35ZMnk
The video Wrigley Company released to advertise Skittles was one of the worst ads to ever be released. The visuals, setting and lack of energy used to persuade the audience creates a negative impression of an already well-known product. Not only is the ad nonsensical from a marketing perspective but it also has a negative effect, turning people away from purchasing Skittles.
The introduction to Skittles in the ad was when the female character asks the male character “What’s wrong Billy?” and the male character, Billy, replies by saying “My doctor says I have Skittles Pox.” The introduction to the product in this ad is through associating it with a disease or illness. To strengthen this association, the ad visually illustrates Billy having pox. However, instead of rashes, Billy’s face is covered in Skittles. As a result, the implied and actual association instilled in the audience is an association between Skittles and rashes. When viewing this, the audience is prompted to feel disgusted. The rationale behind this effect seems to be that if people are disgusted by it, they will not only share it but also remember it. However, this rationale is extremely flawed. If Skittles’ biggest issue was a lack of popularity, this marketing strategy would not be an issue as it would likely solve that issue. However, Skittles is and has been very well-known across the globe as one of the most popular candies. Therefore, all that is left for Wrigley Company to do in order to get people to purchase their product is make their product attractive. By associating Skittles with rashes, the ad released does the exact opposite.
http://pluperfecter.blogspot.com/2012/12/skittles-pox-and-viral-tv-commercial.html
Not only do the visual strategies cause the audience to view the product as unattractive but the setting does so as well. By taking place outside the empty stands of a stadium, the audience views the characters as excluded and alone, creating the subconscious assumption that the characters are outcasts experiencing isolation. The fact that they are standing right outside a fence amplifies this affect. By associating such feelings, through the setting, to the consumption or appreciation to their product, they make it appear unattractive.
https://www.dollargeneral.com/skittles-original-bite-size-candies-14-oz.html
Another way in which Skittles is made out to appear unattractive is through the absence of enthusiasm or energy. Most food ads display enthusiasm and pedantic energy when the food is consumed. However, when consuming a skittle, the girl has little to no reaction and simply asks “Are they contagious?” While deviating from norms can create popularity, Skittles does not need popularity. It needs attractiveness and this strategy works against them in that regard. Because other products exhibit some form of enthusiasm or energy, they tend to seem more attractive to the viewer.
If Skittles wants to create an effective ad, they need to actually promote their product.
You are completely correct in your analysis of the way in which Skittles fails to appropriately advertise their brand. Obviously, the visuals and association with chicken pox is disgusting and a terrible marketing strategy for a company that didn’t even need to have a commercial that stuck out to the public that much. However, I never considered the lack of energy in this ad until you pointed it out. The girl shows no reaction to tasting a Skittle, which provides no incentive for the buyer to taste them as well. Overall, very insightful job tearing the ad apart!
This is a great dissection of a very widely syndicated ad. I have seen it very many times between halves or after a kickoff of football games, breaking up constant car and car insurance ads. It has definitely struck me as an ad worth noting. Although I agree that the ad is definitely disgusting and promotes a negative image of the product, I still think the lasting memory that disgusting feel one gets from the ad promotes is worth the seemingly negative publicity. Yes, this may make one think less of Skittles, but in that action, one is still thinking about Skittles. And from an advertiser’s perspective, that is the end goal. However, I completely agree with your claim that the ad lacks energy and seems to promote Skittles as a candy for outcasts. On those fronts, even with the lasting memory of the ad as the end goal, I think it would have been better done if it were more energetic and slightly better framed. Along those lines, do you agree with the old adage that “all publicity is good publicity”? I view this ad as an endorsement of that proverb, regardless of if it’s successful or not.
I totality disagree. I feel that this was meant to apeal towards kid because if you dont know “billy” is a character of a disney show “liv and maddie”. And I saw lots of kids pointing to him saying look at him he’s from that show. And if I saw an actor that I knew on a comercial when Iwas a kid I would be more drawn to it. And I feel that your are takeing it to literal you see it as disgusting because its like a rash I see it like the girl loved Skittles soooo much she didn’t mind picking it of billy and keep in mind this is a comedy commercial. Also the commercial did not really effect the buying for me and every year i buy Skittles, jolly rancher, and Hershey to give to kids on Halloween and skittles are all gone before trick or treating ends so you need to have a better perspetive because who eats more candy the kids or the parents. I think you need more evidence to support your claim. Go find some.
The commercial made me want to vomit. I haven’t bought skittles since and even seeing the package in the candy isle repulses me. That commercial was a stupid move.