ANZ Bank – We Do How

ANZ bank has been pushing their latest advertising campaign, “We do how”, for quite some time now.

As is the norm for the banking sector, ANZ is still advertising the usual bank offerings. There’s nothing new on offer that you can’t get with any other bank. The campaign is fairly good as far as banking advertising goes, and like all banks, it’s backed by a mega budget.

The characters in the campaign, the Sharma family, are fairly likeable. We have Ravi; the “trying-too-hard-hero-dad”, Claire; the token mother, and Sameer and Tara; the prop-like children. The variations of the theme are clever in the series of ads they’ve made, which blend together nicely.

However, their singular pay-off line in the advert below makes me cringe: “See how ANZ could help you pay off your home loan faster”. As a homeowner, I’m really into the concept of paying off our mortgage as fast as possible. The idea of paying vast amounts of interest to tyrannical banks has no appeal to me and I want to be out of our black hole of debt as quickly as possible.

The depressing part of this commercial is that ANZ clearly shows that our characters have had a mortgage since January 2000, and now, 22 years later, they still owe $47,360. 22 Years in debt is already a very long time.

What’s far worse in this advertisement is that ANZ’s claim is frivolous and that’s because one word sticks out of their payoff line: “See how ANZ could help you pay off your home loan faster”. Yes, they could help you, but will they, and how? How can ANZ advertise such a vague, variable service in such a way? It’s all puffery. I can’t even say they’ve used some smoke and mirrors trickery here – they’ve just weaselled out of their service offering by claiming that they might be able to help.

If the Sharma family have been in debt for 22 years, how is ANZ making their mortgage go “out the door” any faster? And most importantly, what benefits are there for consumers to move from one faceless banking institution to another? If all they can offer are low mortgage rates then how long will it take for other banks to match them?

What would have happened if ANZ and their advertising agency, TBWA NZ, used a more persuasive word that drives action, like “will”? What if ANZ had instead said, “See how ANZ will help you pay off your home loan faster”? What would the response have been from consumers and would they switch to ANZ?

One word can make all the difference, especially in advertising.

Media Space Versus Creative – Who Wins?

The creative work of advertising agencies is more important than media space.

Media space is the exact same 30 seconds of wasted time that it was 30 seconds ago. Media is static, boring, unchallenging, and interruptive. Media is nothing without a creative message, especially if the creativity asks for permission to communicate with consumers.

Here are ten pros and cons of media and creativity:

1. Con: Media is just a space, and there’s too much space, meaning media is no longer valuable or scarce. Please tell me, where can’t I advertise?

2. Pro: You can make heaps of cash through media commission throughout the lifetime of the campaign. Produce one ad and run it for a year and you’re rolling in it.

3. Con: You can’t make heaps of cash through creativity. Sorry.

4. Con: Creativity is a sliding scale and suffers from the “Jackson Pollock Curse”. What appeals to one person is a failure to many others.

5. Pro: Media doesn’t necessarily share creativity’s failures. The ads will still run if the client is happy to do so, even if consumers find the ads ineffective.

6. Con: Media measurement is mostly pointless. One hundred thousand people saw your ad three times during a six-month campaign – how many sales did you make?

7. Con: Don’t get me started on how media builds awareness. Awareness is masturbation.

8. Con: Media is an interruption. Who invited you into my life? People care that you have their permission to talk to them. Just because I have an Internet connection doesn’t mean you can bombard me with banner ads.

9. Con: If you’re spending big money on media, then creativity loses power. Think of Harvey Norman, Bunnings, and Mitre 10, all not known for creative excellence.

10. Pro: Creativity is unbridled, powerful, and can be life-altering and immense.

A lot more cons than pros. In most circumstances, people do not care about the place but only about the content. No one stands outside the Louvre to say they stood outside the Louvre. They stand for hours outside the Louvre so they can say they finally got in and saw the Mona Lisa or the Venus de Milo. I’ll admit that not every gallery is as amazing as the Louvre, and obviously, not every piece of art is a Mona Lisa, but how many people want to stare at a blank wall?

Creativity wins.

Often the story is truer than the truth.

People love a good story, and nothing is truer than in advertising.

Or is it? The story of how delicious a McDonalds’ burger looks and influences us in an advert is far more powerful than the truth – the tiny burger that you get in a store, stuffed into a tight, snapping white box, and dumped into a brown paper bag. The two don’t match, but that’s okay since the story is what consumers buy into. Should it be?

Compare Maccas to Save The Children, a charitable organisation that, (well, how else can I say it?) want to save children from hunger, sickness, disease, and many other issues. What Save The Children want from people is a small, monthly contribution of $20. Unlike Maccas, their advertising and website tell the truth – images of children and babies suffering through terrible conditions are the majority of what you see and read about. It’s heart-breaking. Is it possible they can tell a story that is more powerful and motivational than the truth? After all, what’s the story you tell yourself about $20 per month?

Two Save The Children ambassadors knocked on my door a few weeks ago. The truth is I said no, I wouldn’t help. Maybe it was the inconvenience of filling out forms and giving bank details to strangers, or perhaps I’m just a shitbag? But it is what it is, and the truth hurts me.

In the world of advertising, the story and the truth should always be the same, but they’re often not – that’s the truth. What right does any business have to lie to consumers and why is the vast majority so willing to absolutely accept the story?

As an advertiser, where does the line stop between telling a manipulative story versus going out there and spreading the power of the truth?

Westpac - a wolf in sheep's clothing

Westpac Bank made a $583 million profit in six months between 2020 & 2021.

Just like all banks, Westpac isn’t there to make friends – they’re in the business of making money.

Banks are a grudge purchase. Banks all offer 99% identical services, interest rates, account structures, and so forth. What they don’t offer is the same people. As I’ve said lots of times before, “people do business with people”. If the bank is the cold, cement heart of the organisation, then their people present the fluffy outer-shell disguise. And it’s this polarisation that makes everything quite uneasy, which is why banks spend a fortune on advertising designed to increase likeability.

When it comes to advertising, banks only have three approaches:

1. glorify the bank

2. glorify their people

3. glorify their customers

ASB is doing a great job with their current advertising campaign involving the Big Guy and his Mrs and their ducks, so Westpac couldn’t go that route or they’d be seen as copycats. Or so I thought. What they did was glorify the bank and glorify their customers. Why do one when two is better?

Westpac’s latest advertising campaign, entitled “Together Greater”, is a prime example of “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” advertising that the banking industry is notorious for. It’s beautifully shot, well-produced, and the story’s easy enough to understand – the girl gets bullied until the helpful monster sorts everything out. Cut to the logo. Upload to YouTube and get a million-plus views. Job done.

But it’s not that simple. When you analyse the ad, you can see a lot of weird stuff floating just below the surface. There is deep meaning at play here.

Take a look at this frame:

Westpac has chosen a girl as their main character.

This gives Westpac a chance to establish without a doubt who the villains of the piece are: a triumvirate of gap-toothed, filthy haired, dim-witted male trolls. If you missed it, these bullies are representations of Westpac’s competitors, the big three of ASB, ANZ, and BNZ.

Our heroine has a hissy fit, enraged by the treatment from the other banks and storms off to the river, where luckily enough, she finds a tanked-out paddle boat lying in the dirt. It’s clear that the boat represents the child’s dreams and aspirations, and we see her trying to push it free.

But suddenly, a shaggy monster appears and drags the boat out of its shallow grave and pulls it away. This, strangely enough, further infuriates the child, who bravely demands that the monster give the boat back (where was this courage at the start of the ad?), even though it’s not really her boat.

Soon we see that the monster isn’t really a monster in the same way as Dracula or Freddy Krueger are. He’s got a happy, smiley face and beautiful deep blue eyes. So is this how Westpac see themselves – crafted by Dreamworks? The monster smiles and giggles at the child and within seconds, they’re the best of mates and off they go to start a new adventure together.

We now enter quite a sad stage in the commercial, in my opinion. The child’s only friend is a monster and together, they build this mammoth, glorious boat, a clear representation of the child’s dreams coming to life but built completely from found objects and stuff dumped on the roadside. Is that how Westpac sees its customers – scavengers who dream and build with scraps and other people’s refuse? It makes me quite angry.

It’s pretty easy to see what’s coming: the next day arrives and the other banks return and attempt to take over our heroine’s dreams. But not if Westpac has anything to do with it! He boldly steps up and scares the heck out of his competitors. What is strange is we do not see the full monster character from here on to the end of the commercial – just fragments of his body.

What you do notice, if you’re sharp enough, is that the girl’s clothes have changed colour to match the end logo sequence of the ad. Splashes of maroon and pink are seen on her chest and neck. What if we only see fragments of the monster’s body because the girl embodies him now, representing Westpac, complete with its brand colours?

This entire commercial is a fantasy, not just visually but symbolically too. I used to bank with Westpac, but I left eight years ago because of terrible service. People leave banks for a ¼ of a percent lower interest rate or a cashback offer on a mortgage swap. No amount of advertising will change this fact.

Most important for me is whether you’ll demand more from your bank than letting them spend millions on ad campaigns?

PS. Notice how in the end, the girl become friends with the other banks? Perhaps this is a blatant display that all banks really are the same in the end.