We have all witnessed the anti-exposure: a commercial that is so annoying it not only wore out its brand welcome, but has also became a detriment to the brand — degrading the brand with each successive viewing.

There are different reasons for this like the commercial was never that good. However, sometimes the anti-exposure is more than just a good or bad commercial.  It is a byproduct of too much money, micro-targeting, or lack of desire.

Too Much Money
My guess is the Southwest commercial tested well with focus groups, however, I am sure the focus group did not watch the commercial 50 times.  The high frequency of the commercial ruined possibly an effective ad:  

• Seeing the commercial once – entertaining, impactful, and memorable. 
• Seeing the commercial too much – annoying, harmful to the brand, and unfortunately not forgettable

Sometimes over exposure is a function of too much money.  Marketers have a choice of spending money in media or production.  Many times the marketer will choose to minimize production (number of commercials) to maximize media dollars (exposure). 

Some marketers understand this concept and consistently create ads to keep their message fresh and prevent the anti-exposure.  For example, to win the mobile wars AT&T and Verizon are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into broadcast, and they are constantly creating ads to support their key differentiation.  Verizon is continues to generate map commercials, and AT&T has Luke Wilson reveal a myriad of different ways to multi-task with a phone.

Designed for the Few
About five years back I was working on the Chrysler business.  A bright strategist for BBDO did a insightful analysis proving excessive dealer association advertising degraded the brand.  It made sense.  The dealer advertising targeted deals to people shopping for a new car, which at any given time is less than 4% of the market.  The excessive deal-vertising overwhelmed the brand message and constantly degraded the brand for the 96% of people not in market for a new vehicle.

The Chrysler example is another reason why a commercial can get annoying — they are designed for the micro-target.  Designed for the few.  Most Super Bowl commercials work because they are designed to entertain all viewers.  Effective marketers who use mass media understand they are communicating to all viewers, so they either need to entertain the masses and/or communicate a mass benefit (e.g. think about our Verizon’s maps as a mass benefit).  If people cannot relate to the product benefit or the entertainment value of the commercial, it will decrease commercial effectiveness.  It will become more and more annoying with every exposure.  In a way, DVRing the commercial may be a brand blessing.

Create Commercial Desire
You may remember the  Messin’ with Sasquatch commercials from Jack Link’s Beef Jerky.  Or maybe you don’t, because the commercials did not receive a lot of air play.  The commercials were based on a simple entertaining premise — people playing pranks on Sasquatch.  The commercials don’t seem to get old, and if you check out the YouTube Channel you’ll find that many of the commercials of received well over 1 million views.  They are not only on television they are sought out online.

Sought out — an interesting premise.  Can you imagine creating commercials that are the antithesis of the anti-exposure — they are a desired exposure.  Many Super Bowl commercials are sought out, because the single airing was not enough.  Some marketers, like Apple, create desirable ads on a regular basis. For example, the introductory commercial for the MacBook Air ad was simple, elegant and memorable (i.e. sliding a MacBook into an envelope),  and online within weeks the commercial had over 1 million views.

So what about Southwest Airlines?  Well, as of the past weekend they have moved on from the beer-gut, belly-painting, flashing baggage handlers to just the baggage handlers strolling on the tarmac discussing the merits of bags flying free.  Simple, entertaining, and not over epxposed … at least not yet.

Southwest public affairs responded with a call to Kevin, free air fair, and a public apology.  The public apology can be found on their corporate blog. 

The interesting read is not Southwest’s apology, rather the comments responding to the blog entry.  Some people applaud Southwest for deplaning over sized people, while others state they will never fly Southwest again.  This makes me wonder how much clout does Kevin Smith have in persuading people to not fly Southwest?

The Oprah Effect
Celebrity influence is used throughout advertising as spokespeople, endorsers, ambassadors … all to elevate a brand through the association with the celebrity’s ”brand halo”.   And many times it works.  The classic example is the “Oprah Effect” and how her endorsement can potentially vault a brand within her following.

This incident is different.  It is more like when bad things happen to famous people.  The fact the incident centers around Kevin’s weight and a standing airline seating policy hits homes with many people.  Even if the people do not care for Mr. Smith.   In reflecting on the incident did Southwest handle it well?  You could argue initially they did not.  They are doing everything they can to rectify the situation now, but unless Kevin chooses to reconcile with Southwest there will be lingering brand damage.

Which brings me to the point of — although people are empathizing with Kevin (or Southwest), how influential is he in their airline choice?  We are influenced by people in our social circle: people we know, people we trust, and people we may seek out in the course of purchasing a product.  They influence our purchase decision.  For example, per automotive research we know about one-third of people state social peer influence was either extremely important of very important in their purchase decision of a new vehicle.

While Kevin is no Oprah, he does have a following.  His current issue with Southwest will probably impact their decision in their next flight.  Whether it has a long term effect will be probably based on Kevin and if he let’s the issue die or he keeps bringing up the incident.

No one wants to be “Kevin Smithed”
Overweight people will also have a lingering effect in their airline choice, because they do not want to be “Kevin Smithed”.  Look, no one wants to be embarrassed.  The fact that he was deplaned and it made front page news resonates as the worst type of public humiliation for people (one could argue some of the embarrassment was self-inflicted through Kevin’s twitter feed).  Although many airlines have an “oversized passenger” policy, Southwest has been cognitively associated with this issue, and it will be difficult to shake.

So where should Southwest go from here.  If you view this from a trusted advisor perspective, the best way to mitigate the damage is from the advisor’s perspective — Kevin Smith.  Southwest can publish all of the public apologies it wants, and they may be sincere.  However, a public apology is expected, and the fact it is broadcasted will lack sincerity in most people’s eyes.  Instead of a public apology by Southwest, the truthful method for diffusing the incident would be if Kevin publicly states the dispute has been reconciled.   In a way, then Southwest would we have social closure.

On a personal note I am a fan of Kevin’s work.  Although I enjoy his movies and the ”evenings with Kevin”, he has no influence over my airline selection.  By the end of the week or so, buzz of this incident should subside, and Kevin will benefit in the end – he just got a great story for a “Four-vening with Kevin Smith”.