Candy Hearts Creative Review 2/14/23

Thanks everyone for putting in the extra work on the Candy Hearts creative. I know everyone misses their families, but we all know how important this work is for our clients. Before we begin, let’s just reground in the brief very quickly.

Audience: People who like giving Candy Hearts and people who like receiving Candy Hearts. Legal won’t technically allow us to say “everyone” because Candy Hearts are a choking hazard for small babies and people with swallowing disorders. For now, let's call this group, "Lovers."

Insight: Lovers like giving and receiving Candy Hearts, whether they eat them or not.

Big idea: Love is fun. Love is for everyone.

In other words, we want people to positively associate the Candy Hearts brand with love. Love is fun, and so are Candy Hearts. Everyone likes to be loved. So everyone will like our Candy Hearts. No, I know we can't say everyone, Margaret, but you know what I mean.

Brand personality: Affectionate, playful, transformative

Obstacles: Candy Hearts are disgusting

Any questions? Excellent. Let’s see the work. If it’s okay with you, I’m going to comment as we go through.

This is a little formal, don’t you think? Remember, we want both our Givers and Receivers to think “Love is Fun!”

I can’t take anything seriously if it hasn’t been proofread.

I don’t even know what I’m looking at. The label for a cartoon jug of old-timey moonshine? And the lower line will give people impending text anxiety. This one isn’t salvageable.

Okay, you’re on the right track having a call to action. But “be” is basically the most boring verb around. And while the brevity gives it a soup?on of action, you can’t quite mask the fact that this still ultimately feels passive. Also, I’m not sure where you guys saw “ownership” as a key benefit in the brief. Maybe fifty years ago, but today this could be really problematic. If you decide to keep this one just know it’s going to be a lot of work.

Inversion doesn't make this any less icky. We want Givers to hand out Candy Hearts with pride, not abject obsequiousness. Also, this is terribly presumptuous.

Punchy language, still passive. Also, I’m confused about the objective of this line. “Be cool” means “relax,” doesn’t it? We don’t want our Receivers relaxed, we want them excited by this interaction. Can you flip this temperature-wise? And make it more active.

I know this was probably purposeful, but sweetheart is one word. When you break it apart, heart starts to take on anatomical connotations. It’s not cutesy anymore, it’s Donner party. I know it’s not gonna fit, Chad, that’s why you need to rethink it altogether.

I do like this one. It solves the issue of the previous Candy Heart while retaining the overall sweetness messaging, and that's clever because Candy Hearts taste like sediment. But am I the only one who still feels like we need a little more negative space?

By solving one problem, you’ve created another. This is childish.

Okay, so the good thing here is that you’ve solved the confusion of a “cool” message. The problem is that without specificity, the audience is left to wonder what exactly the stuff is that is hot. Gonorrhea causes a burning sensation, you see what I’m saying? What do you mean "Not always," Steve? First of all that truly avoids my point, and secondly, how would you know? I'm sorry, I don't mean to make this awkward. Can we at least agree on one thing? Most of the options we've seen thus far serve as complete sentences. This just kind of... sits on the Candy Heart. Fragments may be fine for mosaic artists, but you're in advertising! Embrace the challenge!

Way too forward. Please don’t show this to Account.

There’s some flavor to this, which is good given the relative flavorlessness of Candy Hearts. Although I am sort of bumping up against that repeating “IE”. Visually it's... I don't know. I'm having a hard time articulating this. It's like... it's like, “Cut, that is, P, that is.” I don't know, you know? Oh I don't know. I’ll leave it up to you if you want to show this one.

Wrong audience. Candy Hearts are for Lovers.

Did this fall out of a bag from the Sixties?

What is this?

I think a single wink will suffice. If you give two you’re going to look like you have something in your eye.

Now HERE is a strong call to action. Active voice. Short and to the point. The only issue I foresee is that this may be limiting for our audience. Remember, “Love is fun. Love is for everyone,” Margaret, don't say it. My point is, nowadays, there are whole swaths of people who don’t even use their phones as phones. Can you run this one past Strategy?

Guys, we stopped advertising on Twitter so we wouldn’t look like Nazis. I appreciate the stab at relevance, but please.

Limiting. In Phase 2 we may segment for tweens, arranged marriages, hardcore Christians, etc. But for now, many of our Givers and Receivers have done waaaaay more than kiss, and we don’t want to confuse them.

Coming on a little strong here! Also, can we maybe not show them any options on white? It just reinforces the sense that you're about to bite into a piece of chalk.

Forever is one word.

Well, okay. I see some glum faces around the room, but don't give up. I know there's more where that came from. I have 100% faith in you. Just keep pushing!

Oh, and I won't be able to review the next round until morning. I've got plans tonight.