Who let the dog out?
When Vodafone took over Hutch, many were concerned about the pug. But this put everyone’s concerns to rest. However, a lot of communication after that was dogged about its non – pugness. But suddenly, in the middle of perhaps the biggest media event in oh, okay a couple of months – IPL, the pug decided to make its return with what possibly might be regarded as a CSR initiative – to tackle Alzheimer’s? Of course, it could also be a CCR inititaive. Don’t worry, you’re not out of jargon touch, I just made that up – Customer Care Response :D. Now that’s really making the most out of now. No, the hatred is not so much for the ad as it is for the frequency. In fact, the music is extremely good.
My queries – even though the pug’s popularity reached dizzying heights (so much so that the only thing missing was a Bharat Ratna) how important is it in the Hutch communication plan? More importantly, is it okay to use it on and off? Would that kind of random usage amount to inconsistency in communication?
On a larger plane, if media in general keeps getting fragmented, how relevant would consistency be across platforms/media. Would it be better to have a core idea with different manifestations across media or would the idea be dictated by the medium? Like i wrote a while back, going by the current trend (in India) the former seems to be the strong favourite.
But if the audience differ across media, isn’t it better to communicate something that’s contextually more relevant, even if it means sacrificing consistency? Does the audience really have time to sit and analyse that the communication i saw on the net differs from the one on tv with respect to tone/ objective/ any other parameter. I really don’t think so, especially since the internet will force brands to give up control.
And that brings me back to Hutch – on the same media, targeting the same audience, with no contextual crutch, perhaps consistency is important.
until next time, a pugilist for the cause of giving up control 🙂