Adiocracy

We love a good repositioning. And we’re always rooting for a brand attempting to wrestle a challenged image. But this campaign for Dockers feels like a humorless cross between Canadian Club’s 70′s dad campaign (commented here in Nov 08) and the oddly anachronistic choice of (Dockers parent) Levi’s ‘Go Forth’ campaign which employs the now naively earnest-sounding turn of the (last) century gems of Walt Whitman.

But at least the CC campaign applies an ironic wink. And at least the Levi’s campaign goes for an over-the-top mock heroic quality (we say ‘mock’ because we’re pretty sure not even Levi’s or agency Weiden & Kennedy truly believe it mirrors the qualities of their next generation consumer).

The Dockers campaign, however, is so embarassingly over-processed and overly earnest in asserting its manifesto of old-fashioned assumptions. And, amazingly, it is done without even a shred of humor, which would certainly have helped it along. Sadly, it gives off a vibe of being written by a bunch of ‘Men of A Certain Age’, trying hard to reimagine a new youth.

But what if the brand commits to sticking with the position over the long haul, has the sensitivity to fine-tune it into something authentic, and the discipline to develop it at every interesting touch point? We don’t think Dockers will ever launder away its ‘dad’s Saturday evening casual pant’ image (nor should it). But maybe it can become the casual party pant for the guy who goes for the bourbon instead of the light beer.

End note: ‘Pant’ which we used twice in the above sentence has been deemed by Esquire as a word no man should use. But, this is coming from an institution that features articles on how to purchase the perfect third pair of dress shoes.

Is it a large mashed potato ball? Or humans in sheep costumes velcroed together and hung from a crane? Nowhere on the page does the ad bother to tip its hand. Not even a little. The copy only offers a vague promise that the car ‘considers your environment too’. This ad — part of a campaign that features other people in costumes — has us perplexed. What’s your interpretation?