Wednesday
Aug242011
Does this ad appeal to you or turn you off?
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 
Edit to add: Because a lot of people were confused, I'll explain a bit. This is a poster in the window of a store that sells brand name products at discount prices. I was hoping for people to comment on whether "baby got brand" is a concept that would appeal to you and make you want to go into the store and buy brand name things for your baby or whether the concept of "baby got brand" turns you off and would cause you to walk away.
Reader Comments (54)
First I'm confused. And then I'm turned off. Because the last thing I want is for my kids to be branded - figuratively or literally.
I'm confused too. What's the point of the ad? It is also visually unappealing for me because of the overlapping images. It hurts my eyes.
I'm thinking this is an ad in a store window, hence the glare of people/buildings. As for the ad itself I'm turned off by it for the same reason as Brea. I don't want my kids to be branded in any way or feel they need to wearing the "popular" brands.
hm..it looks like you or someone else took a picture of this ad (i'm guessing it's a window ad for a specific store?)...i see the picture takers reflection in the window.
unsure which brand it's advertising..i'd guess carters or Gap. seems pretty unclear and besides..babies don't NEED brands.
Seems a lot of people were confused, so I added an explanation to the post. My apologies for the image quality. It was me taking a picture of a poster that was behind a window.
I totally agree: I don't want my baby to be branded. Brand awareness comes far too soon anyway! I do like brands like Lego but avoid them otherwise as much as I can.
Sandra
I'd scoff and walk away, muttering to myself all the while.
Believe it or not, I understand the question.
I suppose for the types of people who really care about having brand name things, this might appeal. I think the colors and the key visual really grab you, especially as a poster in a window. That said, while I believe in brands myself, this ad rubs me the wrong way. Either it's saying that the baby is happier because he has brand name things, or trying to make you feel better as a parent by giving the kid brand name things. Both messages fall flat for me.
And then there's that last bit about playing off "Baby Got Back" which--well, uh. Yeah. That.
I would actually neither be drawn to or turned off by this store and its advertising. While I do agree that babies certainly do not need brands I do often find myself buying brand names (especially toys) for the quality difference. The brands that I tend to purchase are the higher end eco-friendly and family minded brands (PLAN toys jumps to mind). I would personally rather spend a bit more, buy less and have something that lasts and can be cherished.
I think many do not think of this as a "brand" in the same way that Gap or Carters would be- but in reality PLAN or HABA are high end brand names.
So I would be drawn to a store where I can purchase great toys or quality clothing that will last and also follows the consumer guidelines that we generally follow in our household.
I've no problem with purchasing a brand, but while it's my choice, my child is not going to advertise for a company, movie/tv show, toys, etc. Because this looks like it's about buying brands for the sake of wear a brand name (rather than because of it's value) I'm turned off by this ad.
Lauren, I agree with you on quality... I can think of a particular toy company whose toys are excellent quality and foster creative play, but I don't want my son wearing a tee with "xyz" on his shirt.
Mom101, the same song came into my head too.
Turned off. I specifically shop for unbranded items for my baby. The few things we have that are fancy-labeled were gifts. My baby is not an advertisement, and for that matter either am I. We also avoid all advertising, and branding is just a form of advertisement.
I'm not inherently drawn in. Like other commenters, I'm of the opinion that brand doesn't matter to the baby and shouldn't matter to the parent, either. That said, I'm not brand-conscious for my own purchases either, so I have a whole different mindset than a not-negligible portion of the population.
The most brand-conscious consumers are probably in the wide bracket of 10-30, with the upper end of that tailing off when you have kids and realize that brands are only important when they represent true value for quality (anyone in the world will pay extra for quality when the item needs to have longevity).
But what do I know? I get most of our stuff at consignment stores and garage sales.
I am not into having brand name items just because they are brand name. I do, however, love a deal. This sigh totally turns me off. I wouldn't go into this store.
I was in this store in my hometown the other day and also noticed the sign. It didn't move me either way, other than to sigh to myself at the thought of yet more needless baby-stuff marketing. It's everywhere, and it's really gotten into everyone's consciousness. To me, not only is the sheer amount of stuff being marketed to parents as "necessities" really unnecessary, but the fact that it now apparently needs to be of the right brand just adds to the distasteful quality of it all. I didn't leave the store, though - I was on a mission to buy a specific item.
The other day, when my mom was telling me that my aunts are fretting that I maybe don't have all the stuff I need for my second baby (hopefully to be born in the next couple of days), I responded in this way: "I have my bed, I have my breasts, and the diapers and clothes I used with my older kid are still in good shape. We're ALL SET!"
not really turned off, but its weird. i dont really like the reference to "baby got back." its too gimmicky, but i have seen worse.
It bothers me, for the song and the overdone Got Milk gimmicky style.
I would agree with earlier commenters that for a parent focused on getting brands, this might do it.
It doesn't really sway me either way. I buy clothes that fit my kids & are good quality. I don't care if they are "brand" names or not. I have shopped at second hand stores because occassionally you get good deals. But I don't buy my kids anything really that brands or lables them.
I argee with Lauren I will buy "brand" name toys because the company has a reputation that I can trust & quality that I know I will get use through two kids & more than likely be able to hand the stuff down.
My kids have PJs that have movie characters on them, but not clothes.
I honestly have never really been swayed by advertising, there is some that does make me say I will never buy anything from that company, but not ever really convincing me to jump up & buy something.
Oh yes! I would totally want to shop at this store because no one is too young to be turned on to the joys of consumption-driven living. (/sarcasm)
The whole idea of branding turns me off, especially when it comes to young children. I buy brands, sure, but not for any reason but their quality. Our freshman book project in college was reading "Branded" about how obsessed we as a country are with the status that comes along with buying certain brands. It was quite eyeopening.
I don't pay attention to ads much, but I especially dislike ads that don't convey information but appeal to base psychological ... weaknesses let's call them. This one seems to appeal to pride, making the viewer guilty if their baby "don't got" as much brand as possible, or to greed if, as you say, it is obvious that this store has discounted brand-name product.
To me it's ridiculous that I should run into that store to see how much discount "brand" I could get. There is no value proposition there, no telling what the actual products are, no nothing. Since you show the picture out of context I risk judging to abruptly. It might make sense if I saw the whole window or knew something more about the store. A simple poster alone like that without any other context doesn't even register with me. Even if I noticed it I would not be attracted at all to enter the store.
It depends on the brand. Wolf has had a few gap & polo pieces that have lasted longer (in quality & sizing) than almost anything else. And if we are talking ERGO or something I'd check it out too! I buy ergos for close friends who are expecting.
I'll buy brands & pay (reasonably) higher prices for products that make the extra $$ worth it because of higher quality, durability & trustworthiness.
But buying brand names just for the brand name? Silly.
If we're talking buying an Hermes scarf for my baby, I think it's laughable at best.
I don't care about brands anymore. My little one isn't old enough to care, so we don't either. Though, brands often have fancier, more "stylish" items. Eh.
I would definitely turn away. Even as a marketing maven (prof, director, and consultant), I'm very sensitive to marketing targeted to children.
This is me, too - appeals to brand name pride do nothing for me, and are in fact a turnoff. If I knew the store and felt it gave me a good deal, I'd shop there anyway. But the sign alone or any other appeals to my (non-existent) desire to buy brand name products would not draw me in.
I'm not a "brand name" shopper, but I do respect certain brands for their quality. I don't "go looking" for them, but if I see them at a discount (like at Once Upon A Child - which I LOVE) I'll buy them.
I do not like the idea of my child growing up to the constant tune of brand names, so I do often intentionally avoid them. I am trying to avoid having a teenager who Must Have Banana Republic Clothing Or The World Will End.
So in that regard the sign turns me off.
It is attention-getting though, and probably would appeal to Brand Name Shopper Parents.
This would turn me away -- teaching children to embrace branding from day one just seems wrong. I've been an image/branding consultant as well, and think that the world is over-branded and commercialized. I'd prefer to teach them to shop based on quality and need versus keeping up with the Jones.
Without your explanation that ad would make absolutely no sense to me, so I wouldn't pay much attention to it based on that alone. I would pick up on the "Baby Got Back" similarities and I would find that a bit repugnant.
I think the simple fact that many of us did not know what this was advertising is proof positive that it's a poorly executed ad. And while I wouldn’t say it shocks or offends me, as a mom, it doesn’t speak to me. I tend to be logo-averse when it comes to clothes, for me or my daughter. A brand focus turns me off to the extent that the brand becomes a status symbol, and it seems even more out of whack when parents uses their baby as the conveyor of status.
And on a pure gut reaction, there's something about the ad that comes off as a little crass.
I do think brands matter a little more when the reputation is built on superior performance or reliability, which is a pretty comical concept when applied to baby clothes. If the ad is meant to be directed at the mom or dad who is trying to get their hands on a particular stroller, carrier or other gear that is by all accounts good quality and steeply discounted, I can get on board with that. But I don’t like the approach.
So I think it’s really the juxtaposition of brand and baby that bothers me. As if the brand-name item is something that the baby is acquiring, rather than the parent. As if brands do (or should) matter to babies. Any way you slice it, it’s a lousy ad.
Mentally subtracting the photo glare, I actually like the visual style of the ad. It's bright, the kid isn't wearing any billboard style branding, and I like the typography. I personally don't mind the play on "Baby Got Back," and it comes off as slightly cheeky to me (as opposed to disgusting). At this point, I should definitely note that I'm in the US, so cultural sensitivies may be very different on this point. Of course, the store is presumably in Canada, so mainstream Canadian sensitivies are what matter in this case.
When it comes to brands, I feel the same as many posters in the "my baby is not a billboard" realm. I've also tried to take a hard line on character branded apparel and stuff when it comes to my kids. However, I agree with previous posters about some brands being higher quality, so sometimes the brand DOES matter to me. I also shop a lot of consignment stores, so with the explanation that this is in the window for a store that sells discounted brand name baby merchandise, I would probably check the store out.
Again, I'm in the US and we are oversaturated with talk of brands, and not just in the sense of branding as outwardly wearing a logo or other advertising. We have a couple of stores here that sell name-brand and department store clothing for less, the idea that it's higher quality items that are no longer up-to-the-minute trendy and therefore bought at a steep discount, and that's the biggest thing I think of when I see this ad.
It does not appeal to me nor would it make me want to go into the store but if I had already planned a trip there it would not turn me away.
I wanted to throw the picture out there and get some responses to it before I weighed in myself.
When I saw the ad, I thought "UGH!". I understand advertising of baby products that focus on quality or convenience. I do purchase certain brands because I have come to trust their quality and/or because I support their business practices.
However, I do not like the idea of purchasing brands as a status symbol. I cringe when my children want to have certain characters or brands because "everyone else does". I remember that pressure myself as a child and remember despairing when I couldn't have the "cool" brands that the other kids had. Now, looking back, it all seems so artificial. Yes, I still like nice things, but my purchase decisions now for clothing for example are based on what looks good on me, not based on whether there is a polo symbol on it.
I think it is bad enough that school-aged children will feel pressure to have certain brands, so what really turned me off about this ad was the idea that we should push that down even further to babies. What if my child isn't wearing Baby Hilfiger at playgroup next week? Will they kick me out? Will the other moms laugh at me?
If this ad had said "quality brands for your baby" I wouldn't have disliked it nearly as much. But, as others have mentioned above, there was no value proposition in this ad, other than turning your baby into a status symbol and that just made me go "UGH!"
I get what you are saying about Ergo, but I'm glad you didn't buy one for me. I'm too tall and it never fit me right. I preferred my CatBirdBaby Pikkolo. :)
Slogan repels me, but not as much as happy baby picture attracts me. I like the happy baby picture.
the idea of baby got brand is depressing to me, but am guessing the store is no better (or worse) then the rest, and were just trying to be catchy.
Reference to "Baby Got Back"
?????????
A song about women with "booty"
Is that the reference??
If nothing else, poorly written
And kind of sad
Hate the word brand. Someone should rebrand it.
Hate it. They should not advertise to babies or to oms making them think their babies dont have the best if it isnt brand names.
And yes the song reference is inappropriate too.
Neither... I wouldn't be drawn to it just because it's brand names, nor turned off by brand names. Whether I went into the store would depend more on whether I liked the kinds of things displayed in the window, if I thought it was my style.
I'd like to say one thing in defense of the ad - I don't know this store, but I'd imagine that in the context of the store window, the ad makes a lot more sense. It's like seeing a Target poster in the window of Target. It's not intended to convey any info besides, "ooh, shiny. Come inside."
I'd venture to guess it's targeted to moms. Babies don't generally read posters.
In part I see what they're getting at. Often, where I live, if I pop into a discount store it is obvious that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) there is a Walmart purchase from previous years. I am more likely to head into a baby store if they assure me there's something more than Walmart crap.
But yes, as you say, it's the wording that's a big problem. It makes it sound like BRAND is the whole point, which it is definitely not.
When I first looked at the ad, I did have a small but noticeable gut reaction -- one of distaste. It drips with the consumerism that inundates us. But to be fair, it's probably just being more "honest" and direct about it than other sources who play on our obsession with brand identity more subtly.
Just looking at the ad, it does nothing for me. I would see it, not know what it means, and think "well, they didn't do a very good job advertising." Since this is in a store window, persumably they store would have some type of indication as to the type of store it is. Then the ad would make more sense to me, although it still wouldn't do anything for me. I buy for quality products which some brands have, but I don't buy name brand things because they are name brand things. I have no interest in my kids being an advertising tool, especially for free.
I think this is tasteless. It's advertising like this that informs our children when they think they need a brand to be accepted.
I've always been confused about paying for the brand, especially when it is plastered all over the product (Abercrombie, anyone?). Why am I paying to do their advertising anyway? There are definitely some brands out there that are known for their quality, but having the brand for the brand's sake just seems a little, well, shallow.
Neither, really. The picture is good. And I must live in a cave, because I don't actually know this 'baby got back' thing. Anyway, I buy almost nothing new for my kids. However, if this were an ad at a second hand shop, I would go in, because as I have found, a lot of brand name clothing is better quality, so for example, even after going through 2 or 3 kids it might still be in good shape, whereas the 'no-name' clothing will be get ratty fairly quickly. Where I live discount new stuff is still more expensive than second hand stuff.
I would definitely be turned off and not enter this store. Spending resources (monetary, temporal, and environmental) on baby fashion is a complete waste in my opinion. Brand name baby gear seems more to appease the egos of materialistic parents than the rather humble needs of an infant. Using second-hand gear is a far more sustainable and responsible choice for items that are used for such a short period of time. Used items have less environmental impact that ANY new product (even the ones marketed as such). Still care about brand names and keeping up with the Jones? Try Freecycle, Thrift Stores, or your local mom's club for second-hand baby items.
I wouldn't buy from that shop for my family/children, as branded stuff is not part of our family values. However, if I had a friend who really valued brand name baby stuff and I wanted to buy her a present I know she would reaaly appreciate, I might buy it there.
I would walk away. Don't tell me what 'brand' if any I need or want for my kid.
Horrified; I would turn and walk away.
Yes, I do buy particular brands because I like what they offer and/or trust their quality. But this ad is not about that. And it's not even the (possible) appeal to brand-as-status-symbol that bugs me about the ad, but something even more pernicious: brand-as-self. In other words, "baby got brand" seems to me to mean "baby identifies with brand" or "baby knows who s/he is: someone who uses this brand." The various possibilities of selfhood become narrowed down to: Which brands do you use? Not a way I want to identify myself, let alone have my 3-yo identify himself, just as he is discovering himself and his world.