It's one of the age old questions of marketing: you've done a brilliant campaign, so what next? The same again, and reap the benefits of consistency? Or start over, and go for another step change? both run the risk of failing, but the former is clearly the safer option.
Which I guess were considerations that have been on the minds of the Old Spice team over recent months. The first 'relaunch' commercial was a cracker, and real bolt from the blue: clever, fun, ironic and completely unexpected from such a tired old brand...
It deserved all the plaudits it received...and may even have shifted some product at the same time (you never know!)
So in light of success, it obviously made perfect sense to do the same again...
And it's still pretty damned good. Nothing to be ashamed of here, let's be clear.
But...
It's just so hard to bottle magic. The 'how did they do that' factor is gone, not just because they told us how they did it last time...but because (pair of jeans aside), you can see the joins this time (still clever though).
The new film ticks all the right boxes (and is still way better than most ads out there), but doesn't really have the step change impact of the original (and could never hope to).
And consolidation might well be the right business decision for Old Spice, when you've gone from zero to hero so swiftly.
I guess the niggling question is what if they had ditched the constraints of campaignability and done something as radically different again? What might that have achieved?
Easier said than done, obviously. And could have crashed and burned. But is the potential upside sometimes worth the risk?
Note: just for honesty's sake, I should point out I would have done exactly the same as Old Spice, and been very pleased with the results...but you can ask the questions ;o)
