I’m not really a grapefruit kinda guy. I don’t often buy them. So I don’t really eat them. But I don’t mind the taste, so I occasionally dabble in foods and beers that have them in. Their sharpness can be nice with other things – just not alone.
It might come as no surprise then that I haven’t the faintest idea about choosing a grapefruit that doesn’t tear your lips off.
Today’s ad helps me, and if you’re the same, then you too.
Here it is:
Jaffa Credits
I found this ad in The Copy Book. So all I know is the year, the agency, the copywriter and the err… client. If you know others who had a hand in making it, please let me know and I’ll update.
Copywriter: Andrew Rutherford | Year: 1972 | Agency: Saatchi & Saatchi | Client: Jaffa
Pull, squeeze, release
There’s not really a headline. Or if this counts, it’s rather long. And that’s not a bad thing, mind.
But across these sentences, it feels like it pulls me in, squeezes me, and then releases. And I think this influences how it persuades. In fact, there are few elements that do. I’ve grouped them under delivery, believability and stickiness.
Let’s explore them one by one.
How the message is delivered
First, the delivery of the message. In particular, structural components of the copy and its resultant cognitive impact.
Effort
If you haven’t, read it. Notice how pre-Jaffa, all the sentences require physical actions to determine the ripeness of the fruit.
In ways, this makes the testing of other fruits seem arduous. It’s a sneaky way to “disqualify” other fruits and better position Jaffa. I know that seems a bit extreme, considering they’re only fruits. But, technically, you are still competing against other fruits and grapefruit brands, so you need to make the decision as frictionless as possible.
With Jaffa, there’s no lifting, sniffing, shaking or pulling it apart. To identify a delicious grapefruit, you just have to read.
Repetition
You can see how the sentences establish a familiar rhythm and follow the same sentence structure:
“You can tell a [fruit] is perfect by [action] it.”
The total syllables are also very similar (if they were identical, they’d sound too robotic and lose engagement). So, the cadence helps stimulate and lock in the pattern.
The final sentence, however, adds a word (“just”) and breaks the pattern, drawing more attention to the word itself (which also better positions Jaffa) and the sentence’s content. More on this in a second.
When the “Rule of Three” doesn’t work (as well as it could)
First, though, put on your thinking cap. Try to imagine how this ad would feel if there were only one or two sentences before introducing the grapefruit. In fact, just cover up the first half of the ad and read it.
Yes, the “Rule of Three” feels balanced and complete. It flows nicely. And you see it a lot in advertising and copywriting.
But in this ad, there’s nowhere near the same level of focus on the final sentence because the pattern isn’t as established. In fact, by not doing three sentences, you break another pattern (of expectation) and further engage the reader. This is a good example of when to break advertising rules.
Pattern disruption
Okay, so the real impact of the repetition comes from the change of pattern itself. We saw this, in part, with the word “just”, emphasising the importance of this sentence. But the “no-action” testing stands out more because, well, it wasn’t expected.
Effort.
Effort.
Effort.
Effort.
Effort.
Easy.
With each sentence, the frame tightens. And because our brain anticipates another sensory/physical action, it is momentarily surprised when it gets something far easier instead.
The same principle of creating and breaking a pattern is often seen in art/headline combinations. It’s very versatile. Look:
Reebok’s “Postmen” has three postmen with ripped-up trousers, one with them intact. Fisher Price’s “Anti-Slip” has two children on the floor, one standing up. And Citroën’s “2CV” has three sports cars and one 2CV.
Why the message is believable
All copywriters battle believability. It’s the nature of the game. We’re selling, and selling usually raises defences. How this ad garners believability is interesting because it doesn’t tackle it head-on. There’s no social proof, no sales figures, no accreditations. Instead, the ad accrues believability through its simplicity.
Simplicity
The concept itself is simple. The language is very simple (unlike something from Foster or Abbott, who write more elegantly for great effect). And its reading grade is simple too:
You see, familiarity garners trust. And on a micro-scale, the more time you spend with an ad, the more you trust it. If you can accumulate time without spiking defensiveness, well, that’s a net win. We see that here. The multi-layered simplicity makes it hard to feel sceptical.
The Authority Bias
The ad’s confident approach also taps into the Authority Bias. In other words, they suggest that trusting their name alone is sufficient proof of quality. Or in other, other words, you don’t have to actively test for ripeness with them. Jaffa is the easiest and safest option.
This works because brands that confidently assert their authority are generally more trusted (even without explicit reasoning) than those that don’t.
And because Jaffa requires no verification – only recognition – it also shifts the burden of proof (and effort) away from you, the fruit eater, and onto them. It’s a clever way to subtly signal their dominance of the grapefruit world.
How the message sticks
A sticky message is a good message. And stickiness usually comes from emotional and engagement techniques.
Rutherford shares in his The Copy Book entry something worth noting:
“Hint 5: Facts are more persuasive than empty claims. (But a little humour can sugar the pill.)”
Sugar the pill
There aren’t jokes being cracked or grapefruits in silly hats. But there are comedic scents lingering. Why? Because humour helps to lower resistance to a sales message, allowing natural trust/believability to grow. And it also, more importantly, makes a message more memorable.
In his book Look Out, Orlando Wood shares some principles of comedy. Let me share one in particular.
“Transposition to a different key – the idea and relations between its parts are held constant but are transposed (replicated or transferred) to a new surrounding of characters. E.g. servants playing out a less dignified version of a scene already played out by their masters.”
So with our ad, we’re transposing too. Only, we’re transposing our perspective.
Rutherford takes something figurative (e.g. if it says Jaffa) and turns it into something literal (e.g. the grapefruit literally has Jaffa written on it). It’s a shift that brings you into the ad, breaking yet another pattern and making it more memorable.
Of course, you also wouldn’t expect to see a grapefruit with Jaffa handwritten on it. So that adds to the effect too.
How to get more insights next time
Voila. There we are. A 5-sentence masterclass on how to sell grapefruits (and find better fruit).
If you enjoyed this, you’ll most likely enjoy my newsletter too. It’s a slightly more unfiltered approach to ad breakdowns, usually with other insights too. For example, the accompanying email to this breakdown looked at another way the ad builds believability.
So, don’t miss out on the next one. Get it in your inbox. For free. With more insights. And a sprinkling of more fun. Click here (or here) to sign up.
