I’d like everyone to note that when you visit the iPhone 3GS product page on Apple’s site, the only thing it bothers to compare itself to in the initial splash is other iPhones.
By comparison, the Motorola / Google Droid is defined entirely in opposition to the iPhone, down to the url: droiddoes.com (as in, iPhone doesn’t, Droid does.)
If your messaging is entirely defined by drawing attention to the other guy’s product, you have a fairly notable problem.
“Lexus! It’s not a BMW.” would also be a pretty crappy campaign, for those watching.
Against the Grain.
Axe is hardly something I would use, and the marketing is anything but tasteful.
And it sells.
We could argue why it sells, and there are many reasons beyond the use of sex in the marketing, but the number one reason in my mind is simple: every other deodorant product on the market highlights the product as a method to avoid sweat, or body odour, or (to put it simply) a socially awkward situation.
Axe tells (in an arguably ‘fun’ way) you how good it will make you smell, and how the opposite sex will respond to that smell.
I recently advocated focusing on decay, focusing on fear and the negative as an underused promotional strategy. Focusing on the positive is underused in certain markets, as well, and should be treated as such.
For me, the most interesting contrast with Axe isn’t the separation between it and fellow Unilever brand Dove in terms of marketing, but the separation between Axe and every other deodorant product on the market (excepting Tag, which is more or less a direct copy, in terms of marketing).
[None of this is a reflection on the current work being done with the Axe brand, but rather my interpretation of the overall positioning.]
