In the article it speaks about how no brand is truly different but what separates each ad for the brand is the image attached to the brand. In the Chanel No. 5 ad, they decided to use a model Catherine Deneuve; she is in no way related to the product but her face being used causes the viewer to attach certain qualities to the product. The company Babe took a different approach and went with a tomboy style, they still used a famous model but took her out of the typical setting you would find in perfume ads. I agree with the author of this article I think images sell the brand not just the name. Strong images are key when building a brand, if you consistently release ads with great images and concepts people will then attach great qualities to your brand .

She is arguing about the fact that when ever you see a Chanel perfume ad (or any perfume ad for that matter) is always displaying a feminine figure. Like those who would be in a dress or classy famous person. Simply letting the fan base of the model help sale the product. Her argument is that not every ad has to be feminine, just cause its geared towards women doesn’t mean that it has to be classy.  For example, “its position in a system of signs where it signifies flawless French beauty, which makes it useful as a piece of linguistic currency o sell Chanel.” The other ad has another famous person in a karate uniform showcasing a similar product. They used this technique to appeal to the more typical  feminine style connected with modeling.

I agree with her argument because i believe that you cant just use one based standard way or selling/ advertising a product. Granted those ways may work most of the time, but to fully grasp the attention of every consumer, you sometimes need to think outside of the box.

This form of advertising utilizes a meaning or appearance that their subject is known for in it’s significant industry, and applies the motive that the corresponding product will be just as “good”. In direct relation, the subject is the exemplifying aspect of the product and will represent this product to the world and the market’s audience. It is not creating a new meaning for it’s product, but using a meaning that is very known and dear to us(audience) and one that we can relate to.

Judith Williamson makes a valid point. There isn’t a very big difference between products in the same category. They all do the same thing but are all positioned to different people even if the end result is the same. Judith uses to ads for perfume for different companies as an example of positioning the same product in a different way. Chanel uses Catherine Deneuve’s face as a comparison to Chanel No. 5. The beauty and ideals that Catherine stands for are reflected to be the same as what Chanel No. 5 stand for. For the new perfume babe they use Margaux Hemingway. She signifies youth, and a tomboy style. Both of these products are chemicals in a bottle but are positioned to reach two different audiences. Chanel is trying to position itself as sophisticated beauty while babe is positioning itself to not be the normal cliche of beauty. Babe’s perfume position speaks more a younger audience and gives the product more of a emotional feel. Chanel keeps it classy and is positioned for a older women. Now this doesn’t meant that the ads still don’t speak to the competitors target audience. Women who are young might want to be older and use Chanel thinking of the association it brings to them. Older women might use babe because they want to feel young and be different. I agree with Judith Williamson because the products aren’t very different, in the end its all how you position the product to your audience that defines the feel for your product.

State Judith Williamson’s thesis about differentiation in advertising in your own words.

Do you agree or disagree with her analysis? Support your argument with evidence.