About a year ago, I saw a commercial that piqued my interest. It was dark, the copy was some sort of beautiful prose, and I instantly LOVED it. That ad was the first part of Levi’s “Go Forth” campaign. The wonderful words were Walt Whitman’s poetry, and although “Pioneers! O Pioneers!” is almost 150 years old, it sounds like it’s speaking directly to our generation (Western youths, anyone?). Here’s a snippet:
For we cannot tarry here,
We must march my darlings, we must bear the brunt of danger,
We the youthful sinewy races, all the rest on us depend,
Pioneers! O pioneers
O you youths, Western youths,
So impatient, full of action, full of manly pride and friendship,
Plain I see you Western youths, see you tramping with the foremost,
Pioneers! O pioneers!
The first two ads (the other you can watch on YouTube) show 20-somethings running around interspersed with grim visions of Wall Street and America. “America” is literally half-underwater in one ad, symbolizing the bleak recession era. Some people loved it. Some thought it was too artsy. And others mocked it (but at least they’re paying attention).
Fast-forward one year and a new part of the campaign, based on a dingy old town called Braddock, Pennsylvania, is released. The town is desecrated. Economically dead. Like Detroit and countless other American cities, this town used to be a powerful industrial city, a steel-creating powerhouse. Braddock is a stand-in for our broken country, and Levi’s is here to rebuild it.
“A long time ago, things got broken here. People got sad and left. Maybe the world breaks on purpose, so we can have work to do. People think there aren’t frontiers anymore. They can’t see how frontiers are all around us.”
The ad is all about rebuilding and mending our wounded country. As we grow into the group that shoulders these burdens, it’s true, we have a lot of mending to do. Fixing New Orleans. Fixing the Gulf. Fixing the banks, fixing health care, and fixing social security. We’ve been left with a country in ruins. We’re here to build, to work, and to fix. Our generation is on the front lines of the social media revolution, pioneering new technological frontiers. We’re a generation of people who started websites in our dorm rooms and created communities of millions. Frontiers really ARE all around us, both in the technological realm and in the emerging globalized world.
The new ad shows people getting ready to work. The older generations think we don’t want to work, but we do. We’re an entrepreneurial generation, ready to find these new frontiers and build something for ourselves. We’re trying to work,.
This whole campaign is, in my mind, pretty brilliant. Levi’s showed us that America was (and still is) broken. Today, Levi’s is giving us a call to action. It’s saying that the future is in our hands, and imploring us to rebuild. We need to rebuild. It’s up to us to fix the world, a task I think we’re up to.
I LOVE THESE ADS!! So cool. The Oh Pioneers one especially.
Great picks, Tom! These spots connect nicely with us and I like your analysis of them.
Alex: I absolutely love these ads too. It takes a lot for me to drop everything I’m doing and stare at the TV, but the Pioneers ad definitely caught my eye, and I really like the copy of the recent ads.
Susan: Thanks for the kind words! I’m glad you liked the post.
I was 8 years old when John F. Kennedy started the Peace Corps in 1961, his vision to send the youth of America out to the global community to fix the ills of the world. Nixon denounced it as a way for then college students to dodge the draft. In January 2011 the Peace Corps will celebrate it’s 50th. anniversary. If JFK were still alive, he would be appalled that we have let this these united states slide into the “wounded country” you so aptly described, Tom. I think he would have another call to our youth but only send them forth to fix what’s wrong with us. Great article, beautifully written. That ad brought tears to my eyes; Walt Whitman was so prescient.
My first impression of “Go Forth” was that it was a trailer for The Colony. Apocalyptic, to say the least. Not sure it made me want to go out and buy another pair of jeans.
Looking at Levi’s financial performance, it’s hard to discern any real clarity as to whether this campaign has helped or not. SG&A – the bucket where advertising and other ‘sales-related’ expenses show up – is up 25% YOY for 1st quarter, but this is due to more than just advertising, versus a modest increase in revenue of 7% in the US, mostly attributed to the acquisition of outlet stores.
If I were voting on this, I’d say this was a creative selling a brand manager a lot of creative. The commercial as entertainment. It’s lovely theater, but that’s not why we hire ad agencies. We hire them to sell more jeans. Or body wash. Or garden hoses or whatever you’re selling.
Hard to say here, but my gut says this wasn’t a successful campaign. Anyone have an insider’s perspective that can set me straight (or tell me I’m right)?
Thanks –
S. Denny
@Note_to_CMO
I guess I’d have to start off saying that this post wasn’t meant to look at the advertising from a purely financial perspective; I was analyzing the impact the ad’s creative had on my generation, not whether or not it was a financially successful campaign.
You’re right, I wasn’t exactly running into the store to purchase Levi’s the minute I saw the commercial either, but the campaign definitely put Levi’s at top-of-mind for me; if I’m in need of a pair of jeans I would certainly think about buying Levi’s.
I’d also be more interested to see the sales data for the target demo of the ad campaign vs. data for the overall company. It’s very possible that Males/Females aged 18-29 (or whatever the demographic information) actually did create a positive ROI on the campaign, but sales from other segments and different product lines offset the increase. I’m not a huge finance guy, but this is a viable situation.
I’ll agree that the commercial is entertainment, but that doesn’t mean it can’t help increase purchase intentions or sales. It certainly is a high-quality piece of art (on television) and I think it’s very well done. I think in the longer run, we could see this ad campaign (and all of the extra promotional material Levi’s has been doing lately) having a positive effect on the brand’s bottom-line.
Thanks for commenting!
Tom Miesen
@tmiesen
Tom: clearly no misunderstanding on the point of your post – you covered your points well and I understand your being drawn to the production value of the spots. I tend to have a fast reaction when I see these ads, having spent a good chunk of my career on the “buyer” side of the table, across from the agency people.
Apart from the creative goodness of an ad, it needs to do something – if not now, then soon. When the ads don’t produce results, agencies get fired and so do the people that brought them in. I’m always curious to connect, as best I can (and without being an insider within whatever brand I’m looking at), the creative work with the real purpose of creating them. After all, they’re called “commercials” for a reason.
Thanks -
Interesting to take such a stereotypical bean-counting POV while basically calling the campaign a piece of creative wank.
I’m sorry but ‘sell more of product x than we did last quarter’ is actually not the goal of EVERY ad campaign. I mean what you’re implying is that it was a stupid investment, based on a pretty short-sighted measure of success for jeans–which are both a fashion and parity product. Like it or not, being cool and relevant is important for the financial success of Levi’s. Plus that’s not even getting into how tv ads are only a small piece of an overall branding/marketing plan. Based on the reaction they’ve gotten so far, the advertising is carrying its weight. If other elements of the marketing campaign don’t, you can’t blame the creative for that (even though people inevitably will).
If gen y wasn’t reacting favorably, or worse not talking about it at all, then I’d say, yeah you probably have a point, but this is smart and strategic creative. “It’s not selling [product]” is the default argument against any branding campaign that someone doesn’t like or understand.
@seethroughfads
Erica: your “doesn’t like or doesn’t understand” point doesn’t wash (pardon the pun) with flat sales. And stereotypical bean counters are the ones who hire (and fire) creative agencies. Advertising is about selling stuff, if not right here/right now – your typical Toyotathon stuff done by DMA’s – then hopefully sometime soon. Sergio Zyman says it, I’m saying it and every CEO I’ve ever known says it, so give it a moment’s reflection before dismissing it.
If someone has data (someone from Levi’s for example) that this campaign is working, please share it and I’ll be very glad to know something new. Don’t get me wrong – I love advertising, love great creative and love it when it works. But “works” means it turns viewers into buyers.
Thanks – fun to discuss these things -
I don’t know if ignoring all the actual reasoned points I made about branding, marketing and creative strategy then restating your original comment counts as a ‘discussion’ in my book, but, okay.
What you’re saying is not completely untrue — it’s just myopic. I didn’t even say my personal opinion of the creative, I’m only defending it because it’s obvious that the metrics you’re harping on won’t show whether or not the campaign met the objective stated in the creative brief.
Tom, I’m so glad you decided to highlight these ads. Amazing how the words of Walt Whitman still resonate with today’s youth. Nice post.
Is this quote from Whitman as well? I really like it and was wondering who to credit.
“People think there aren’t frontiers anymore. They can’t see how frontiers are all around us.”