Video: Specsavers unveils first TV ad for kids' range
Specsavers Creative has developed a new TV campaign to promote the opticians' range of children's glasses.
The ad, trumpeting the newly-expanded kids' range, has been timed to coincide with the school holidays and will run across national TV from 1 August.
It opens with a car bonnet being repeatedly hit by an electric garage door. After several hits on dad’s newly-washed saloon, it is revealed that the perpetrator is a boy who is unsuccessfully trying to operate his RC car with the garage remote.
As the boy complains “Dad, my car’s broken”, Specsavers’ trademark “Should’ve gone to...” line fades up followed by the kids’ range promotion.
Michael Hutchinson, part of Specsavers' in-house creative team, said: "Although it's the boy's mistake, the laugh is very much on male pride in shiny motors.
"Our target audience is mostly mums, so the tone of voice seemed just right for a kids’ glasses campaign."
The ad was directed by Mustard's Chris Mudge and media was handled by MEC.
New to The Drum
You will be sent a verification email. Click on the link in the email to post your comment.
Comments
Should have gone to an agency etc.
Nah it's OK isn't it? I always think the people in Specsavers ads should be wearing glasses (that obviously didn't come from Specsavers). Otherwise there's no comparison is there? It becomes just a generic campaign of people that need to go to an opticians.
Specsavers seem to be the only opticians doing anything creative, so good on them and their in-house creative department.
Anon 09:55 is right. This kid just needs to go to for an eye test, not necessarily to Specsavers.
Actually, my first thought is that he needs to go for an intelligence test, as he can see and press buttons but still doesn't realise they're not the same buttons as the ones on his toy car remote.
As market leader that's all they have to do. Binary briefing mean anything to you? Thought not.
Very good, memorable and humorous, job done!
Ps. If you watch the ad and your first thought is the kid should go for an eye test, you need to get out more.
Yes, 12:18, that term does mean something to me. It means yet another buzz word coined by someone like you who has to justify their existence in an agency by breaking creative work into phrases and diagrams because you don't have the strength to defend a piece of work for just being great.
To you, 'great' is being able to tick off all the wanky phrases in your brand pyramid or temple.
I get the brand leader thing, but I still know of no reason to go to Specsavers. Yes they are everywhere, but to me they are the McDonalds of opticians.
Can't see properly? Go to an opticians.
Thanks for that...
Great ad, does the job, well done specsavers
It's nowt to do with brand pyramids or anything like that mate, it's just basic logic and it's as old as time, but still relevant. Here's what Dave Trott has to say about it. Read it, you might learn something. And I'm not defending this piece of work. I think it's very average. But the positioning makes perfect sense.
http://www.cstadvertising.com/blog/2009/01/22/
I get the logic of generic advertising if you're market leader (although I'd never heard the term 'binary' before or or read this particular Trotty blog, so I have indeed learnt something).
But why I'm struggling with this creatively (other than the fact it isn't funny) is that, to stretch the cola example, this is a little like telling a man dying of thirst when he has a choice between cola and breathing his last that he should go for the cola. You don't choose whether or not to take your child to an opticians if he's blind as a bat and so the 'Should've gone to Specsavers" line doesn't work in this respect.
Think earlier anon's point is that you DO choose when to change your specs and the line DOES work in its usual context.
Re specsavers being the 'McDonalds of opticians'. You're right, they are. And that's exactly what they're trying to be. The fact that you might not want to go there, could be something to do with you not being in the target market maybe?
Write Your Comment