Editor’s Note: This week’s piece is inspired by this tweet from Jacob Sappington, this tweet from Monish Datta, and this newsletter from Ben Thompson.
A couple years ago, a nearly 20-year-old Harley Davidson ad caught a second life on the Internet.
Even if you’re not into motorcycles, you might have seen it:
This is, I think, my favorite print ad of all time.
For a brand that draws an emotional link to feeling free, the copy is direct. It is dismissive of another form of freedom (flight). It is unmistakably Harley.
In fact, it is so unmistakably Harley, you would likely be confused if another motorcycle brand ran this ad. It is distinctive.
“Peanuts,” as the ad has been dubbed, was considered so good that, in 2002, it won top honors as the year’s best magazine ad.
But here’s the thing about that ad and that award: it probably didn’t sell any extra Harleys—at least not directly.
But that wasn’t the point of “Peanuts.”
The topic of advertising has come up a lot recently, as Facebook called out in its earnings call a potential $10B headwind to its advertising business thanks to iOS changes.
Facebook’s challenge is also a challenge for brands, of course, in that the direct response nature of Facebook’s ads are changing (or, at least, appear to be changing from a measurement standpoint). So, too, are ads elsewhere.
As they do, brands are, naturally, looking elsewhere. But it’s also important to remind ourselves that ads—and the copy in them—do more than just convert buyers in the moment.
For the most part, advertising is a compounding game.
It builds and reinforces distinctive brand assets, creates a positive association for the brand with something the customer values, and slightly increases (or slightly protects) a customer’s chance of choosing the brand when they are ready to buy.
That’s what the copy in “Peanuts” did—and, interestingly enough, continues to do 20 years later.