If you’re weak in a certain area, it makes sense to divert attention away from that area.
This is how the North Vietnamese won the Viet Nam war.
They had to supply their armies fighting the Americans in the South Viet Nam.
They sent these supplies along the Ho Chi Minh trail.
The Americans knew that if they could cut this vital supply route, the North Vietnamese armies have no food, no ammunition, and no fuel.
And they’d lose the war.
So the Americans located the weakest point in the Ho Chi Minh trail.
It was a bridge crossing the Mekong River.
The Americans destroyed it with air strikes.
But just days later, the Vietnamese had rebuilt it.
The Americans destroyed it again.
Again the Vietnamese rebuilt it.
More and more US Air Force resources were diverted to destroying the bridge.
Somehow, immediately it was destroyed, it was rebuilt.
And all the while the Ho Chi Minh trail remained unbroken.
And, because the US couldn’t cut the trail, Viet Nam won the war.
After the war, it was revealed the bridge was a fake.
It was made out of plywood and bamboo and couldn’t carry anything.
But from the air it looked like a real bridge.
It was there to divert attention away from the actual crossing point.
Close by was a ford, six inches below the surface of the muddy river.
It couldn’t be seen from the air, and lorries would cross every night.
While the fake bridge was being repaired to divert American attention.
Diverting attention is a good advertising lesson.
Like a lot of American fast food outlets, MacDonalds made good hamburgers. french-fries, and milkshakes.
But, unlike the others, MacDonalds marketed itself to children.
With cartoon characters, bright colours, free games and toys.
And Ronald MacDonald, Mayor MacCheese, and the Hamburglar.
Very childish and lots of fun.
Children would ask to be taken there.
And every child came complete with one or two parents.
And the parents weren’t going to just sit there while their child ate.
So the parents ordered hamburgers and french fries too.
In fact MacDonalds sold many times more hamburgers, french-fries, and milkshakes to adults.
By pretending to be selling them to children.
And by diverting attention away from what they were really doing.
-
Subscribe
-
Archive
-
Recent comments
- On 30 July Conor commented on JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ALL EQUAL, DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE ALL THE SAME: "Maybe you did Kevin. I'm pretty sure I'm the descendant of a highly advanced extraterrestrial being who showed the Egyptians ..."
- On 29 July dave commented on WHY DO WE KEEP TALKING TO OURSELVES?: "Hi Kevin, A couple of things that could be interesting about cricket, for me, concern the bowling. Number one is the spin ..."
- On 29 July Kevin Gordon commented on JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ALL EQUAL, DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE ALL THE SAME: "None of us are equal. It's diversity that makes life so interesting. just look at all the different comments. And we don't even ..."
- On 29 July Kevin Gordon commented on MORAL RELATIVISM IS MORE CREATIVE: "Personally, I love The Desiderata. "
- On 29 July Kevin Gordon commented on WHY DO WE KEEP TALKING TO OURSELVES?: "Two of my uncles were in the 8th army during world war two. They often had a fry-up on a tank. However, ..."
-
Twitter
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
It’s a bit like magic, innit?
Get your audience to focus on something while you do something else.
This was alo what Avis did in their classic campaign.
No way were they Number Two.
They were Number Three at best, Number Four in truth.
But the agency suggested they positioned themselves as Number 2.
“Won’t the real #2 complain?” the client asked.
“Who fights to be #2?” was DDB’s answer.
So, what Avis was doing wasn’t so much fighting Hertz.
But knocking out the real Numbers 2 and 3.
So long as we are diverted by a solid truth.
Hi Dave,
so what to do when your product has
A) has to sell a lifestyle instead of benefits
B) no points to divert attention from
C) no real competitor to apply predatory thinking ?
there was a guy who used to cross border (yes, the good old times) several times a month. always on bycicle with a huge sack of flour.
police was suspicios of this strange man so they checked the sack every single time. and never found anything.
after almost 10 years one policeman asked the guy:
“we now you’re smuggling something. we just don’t know what it is. if you tell us we promise you that we’ll never press any charges. so what are you smuggling?”
and the guy said: “bycicles.”
best diversion ever in my book.
Is this blog a diversion for CST?
Al.
I nearly used the Avis story, it’s one of my favourite examples.
But because I thought everyone else was too young to know it I used something more modern.
Riki.
My son told me to include the bicycle story. That’s his favourite too.
Vik.
Personally I would make something up.
The answer is always either in the product or the consumer.
So if it’s not in the product, find out what the consumer wants, and sell that back to them.
Hi Dave,
Absolutely love your blog.
Have you heard about Which?’s recent survey.
They are trying to get rid of Tony the tiger, snap crackle and pop and the honey monster to name a few.
They are being dubbed ‘cartoon villains’ for promoting unhealthy foods to children.
Someone in the article on sky news rightly pointed out that all these characters pre-date the obesity epidemic. The bit I found most amusing was this quote from Claire Corbett of Which?: “We definitely don’t want to see the end of popular characters like Tony the Tiger and the Honey Monster, but we do want to see them promoting healthier products.”
I’ve been thinking about how to get Tony the Tiger promote fruit:
“They’rrrreeeee Graaaapppeeess!!!”
It had to be done.
it’s like what Ed did with Volvo in the 1970s in the USA. a very unsexy Swedish car became the only car to buy if you had a brain and valued your children’s lives
brilliant.
and he performed similar sleight of mind with Hebrew National hot dogs. Marginal ethnic food became wholesome american snack endorsed by God himself. amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf2j-YzZRAA
Dave.on this: “Personally I would make something up. The answer is always either in the product or the consumer. So if it’s not in the product, find out what the consumer wants, and sell that back to them”
do you think advertising can become brand’s USP? I mean, there’s a lot of advertising out there who’s clearly fascinating (mainly cause of good production) but all in all don’t have nothing on product or consumer. but people still talk about it and even remember the brand’s name.
wha’t your opinion on this?
Hi Riki.
It’s very difficult to answer as an abstract problem.
Without having a detailed brief I can only give you general principles.
Cars and DIY products are different to FMCGs.
Perfume, beer, cigarettes, are different to financial institutions.
I can give you principles but, without knowing the exact problem, I can’t which ones to apply.
If you want to send me the brief I’ll try to give you better advice:
dav…@cstadvertising.com
Hi Dave.
well, it was more of a general question. and life insurance is precisely the case. I don’t know the exact details of their brief but we all know what delta lloyd did with its advertising. it’s just exaggerated situations, no special consumer insight. but the world is forwarding You Tube links with their ads like crazy.
I may be wrong but I really doubt they have some other advantage. so I was wondering whether advertising can become USP.
btw, thanx for the mail link. I’ll use it when I need it.
Love the blog and that bicycle story is pure brilliance!