Geico Campaign Analysis

The following is a concluding excerpt from an advertisement analysis report done on Geico. The advertisement in question can be seen at this link:

http://www.adweek.com/aw/creative/ad-of-the-day/article_display.jsp?creativeId=269966

However, in the end, I moved away from the single advertisement and focused on Geico advertising in general.

I’m going to move away from the advertisement in question, away from the specific campaign, and deliver a perspective regarding Geico’s campaign scheme as a whole.

I’ll admit. I came into this assignment aiming to kill this campaign. I wanted to rant, rave, and degrade the Geico campaign for its weird, quirky, and oh so prevalent campaigns. I mean, c’mon, is having that many outlandish campaigns really effective? The caveman is annoying, Kash is creepy, and the celebrities doing the real customer dialogues were has-beens. It just didn’t make any sense.

After a bit of background research, my verbal degradation came to a screeching halt as there is a substantial amount of evidence advocating this strategy.

As mentioned earlier on, the car insurance industry is one of the few industries whose target market encompasses everyone from teenagers to great-grandparents; high-income to low-income, as well as both genders of the human species. If you can see yellow lines on pavement and finance a car, you are a potential consumer for Geico.

Because of this, they need a wide array of advertisements to appeal to all different demographics of people. Although I find the caveman obnoxious, that is not to say that a large constituency of others isn’t on the edge of their seats in anticipation for the next 30-second spot of caveman sketch comedy. And just because the actors were has-beens to me, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t resonate with an older demographic.

Regardless of my personal taste, the amazing part is that I can recall five Geico campaigns off the top of my head (Gecko; Kash; Caveman; Real Customers, Real Savings; and Good News, Bad News). Most companies struggle to get just one message across. Geico has drilled their cause into my head even with the commercials that are targeted for a segment to which I don’t belong.

Sidebar: (Kash: Geico’s latest advertising character who symbolizes the money you could be saving with Geico. He eerily stares as customers as a remake to the 80’s Rockwell song “Somebody’s Watching Me” fades in. )

So, maybe this segmented niche branding is effective after all. By launching separate, comical campaigns, most of which that pertain to cost-savings, the consumer is not only entertained by the broadcasted commercial, but recalls past Geico commercials as well in association. From there, it becomes viral. People can argue and comment on their favorite campaigns, almost as if it’s its own series.

In addition to the segments, Geico also differentiates itself as the one insurance company that strive to entertain through humor. While others tout their reliability as paramount, Geico stands alone in making light of serious situations.

Conventional? No. Somewhat disturbing? Maybe.

Either way it’s memorable, and in reality, that’s all that matters. So while all the other companies fight for the segment of consumers that prioritize reliability, Geico reigns supreme over low-cost coverage. Then, with commercials like the one analyzed above Geico can work to chip away from the other segments, reassuring the consumer that low-cost doesn’t mean low-service.

Touché Geico, touché.

Discrimination

Disclaimer: The following story and quotations are not ver batim, however they are in no way skewed or exaggerated. I state this in order to ensure readers that this post isn't a reflection of an inflated ego, but rather a chain of actual events.

Two weeks ago I had a phone interview with an ad agency that will remain anonymous. After responding to each of their first two questions there was an awkward silence which was then filled with "Wow, that was a really good answer."

(Internally I think to myself, "Wait, can they really say that? I'm not mad that they did, but it seems a bit unorthodox. Maybe it's a trick. Remain calm.")

Near the end of the interview, they opened the floor for any questions that I had. My first one was, "What are you looking for in an intern?" A leading question which they responded to with three characteristics, two of which I had mentioned ver batim in my previous responses, and the third which I had danced around as well.

Running out of questions, they closed with, "Wait...it says here that you're not graduating until May 2011, is that true?"

My response, "Yes, it is. However, I hope that you will look past my age and consider my self-initiative and other experience as paramount."

Their response, "Why of course, taking age into consideration as a deciding factor is illegal. Just surprised as you've been a lot more knowledgable than all the others we've interviewed thusfar."

(I'd been researching a lot in the weeks prior, which I guess showed in my responses. This compliment was reassurance on the importance of staying relevant in your industry.)

Weeks later, I received an e-mail stating that they had extended the offer to someone else. Perplexed, I decided to follow-up with them to see what I could do to better myself for the future. After such praise, I had to discover my downfall.

This was her response:
"Well, you were indeed qualified, and one of our top candidates. (Stutter, pause, mumble, pause) But the other candidates had some different experiences, not exactly better than yours, but uh...we just figured...that...they would be a better fit for the team...because...they were more ready for employment."

Now following her statement, I simply agreed, thanked her for her time and the opportunity, and assured her that she would hear from me the following summer. The conversation ended cordially.

Upon collecting my thoughts, emotion began to emerge. Really?!? More ready for employment?!? I'm pretty sure that that is just a politically correct way of saying, "You're only a sophomore, you can wait"?

But what could I do? Nothing. It made good business sense. Why hire a sophomore when you can hire a junior, train them for the summer, and have a strong addition to your team the next year? If not that, why take a risk on a candidate with less classroom experience as well as one less summer of work experience? Sure, relevance is there, but that's not exactly tangible.

According to the Civil Rights Act, there is to be no form of discrimination including age. That sounds ideal yes, but in the business world that's a nightmare. Someone may be more talented but if they are likely to harm your team's dynamics, everything suffers. There are certain stipulations that need to be in addition to this act, especially if you're a follower of Friedman's stockholder theory.

All in all, I'm not happy about it. It hurts to think that age could impede my progress. In endowed me with the following knowledge:

1. Tangibility is Key. It doesn't matter if you can talk the talk if there's no way to prove that you can walk the walk. Even if my answers were more qualified, an extra year of tangible resume experience can trump it. Unless you know the employer, which trumps everything because networking is everything.
2. Remain Humble. Classic story of aspiring young talent getting put in his place. The validity of the rejection doesn't matter. What does matter is how you rebound from the experience. Do you let your ego get the best of you becoming bitter? Or do you use it as motivation to further progress and prove yourself? I choose the latter.

Although the frustration hasn't completely diminished yet, I'll soon get over it. Let's just hope I find a job elsewhere. Either way, today does mark an important day: the first time I ever faced discrimination, a term I'll use lightly moreso as a coping mechanism than anything.