The Ad for Chanel N5 with Catherine Deneuve and the other ad for Babe presume is different in a way they portray women in society. The advertisers from Chanel portray Catherine as being beautiful as she already is and associating her beauty to have a link with the Chanel perfume. Viewers who know or don’t know Catherine may think this woman is beautiful and feminine because of her makeup and cloths used in the ad. As for the ad for Babe presumer the viewer will think that Catherine is a little tougher than she is normally viewed by ads or her modeling career. The babe perfume has Catherine wearing karate cloths and her hair tied back to seem almost like a guy. The babe ad did a good job because people will associated someone at a karate gym to be tuff and strong. Also they company Babe is trying to be different from other perfume companies who would normally make a glamour shot for their perfume bottle. The Chanel ad is so simple and straight forward because they only have a headshot of Catherine and the bottle right below her. They are using a system of signs where they know who Catherine is and how good she is of a person to the public eye to sell their Chanel Perfume. The ad does not have much text but by looking at the setup you automatic think of Catherine as being beautiful and what she has done. The viewers would say wow she is beautiful. The viewers will think many things such as, wow who is this person, wow she is pretty, how did they get her to be in this ad, and why is this ad only a headshot of her etc. The ad for Babe perfume can also sue a glamour shot Catherine but on this ad they decided to do things different so their product can stand out more. Ads are always suppose to make products different from each other for competition.
Based on the reading that we do today, I have learned a lot from it. When we shooting the photos, there is a relationship between the object and the person itself. Such as Catherine’s face and the bottle of the Channel perfume. It doesn’t means that the shape of the bottle is the same with Catherine’s face, but yet, there is meanings between them. In this ad, there is 2 different objects but presenting the same meaning. As we know, Catherine Deneuve is very famous in magazines and films, that is what people can think of when they look at her face. Her face represents her history, with honor and significance. Therefore, the ad for Channel N5 is meaning the same thing, which is it represents the world of consumer goods, and it also give the readers a feeling of high quality product.
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 several interesting points regarding differentiation in advertising. The first is that there is very little distinction between products in any given category. This means that one brand of cigarette or hand soap is essentially the same as the next. It is up to marketing to emphasize what makes each brand unique from the rest; as often as not, this distinction is an arbitrary one.
She continues by saying that there are occasionally products that are unique, but that they typically don’t need the same level of advertising that other, more commonplace products need.
Her primary examples draw from the world of perfume advertising. A classic example is Chanel No. 5. The ad for this perfume is simply that of an image of Catherine Deneuve looking into the camera and a bottle of the perfume with its logo on the bottom of the page. There is no real connection between Catherine Deneuve and Chanel No. 5 . This ad wants you, the viewer, to draw a connection between the glamorous, sophisticated actress and the perfume. Perhaps the viewer will feel that if she uses Chanel No. 5, she too will be glamorous and sophisticated. The ad works because the viewer is already familiar with the image of Catherine Deneuve.
Williamson contrasts the ad for Chanel with one of a brand of perfume called Babe. The image for this ad is in striking contrast to the Chanel ad. In this one, another actress named Margaux Hemingway is practicing karate with her hair tied back. The values associated with this product are distinctly different from Chanel because they are using a very tomboyish, unusual image to sell the product.
At their very core, Babe and Chanel No 5 are essentially the same product. They are both bottles of perfume with a similar chemical makeup. But they hope to sell to consumers by appealing to different values, thus standing out in a very saturated marketplace.
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.