A lot of advertising, especially the advertising I look at here, isn’t direct response. It’s ‘brandvertising’, which plants seeds for future decision-making. And to work, it has to almost re-rank brands in your mind.
So, for example, when you enter the market for a car, “I want a car” becomes “I want a Volvo”.
Today’s ad is a great example of tackling this re-ranking head-on. And who else to teach us than Richard Foster. (For other Foster ads, here’s one for Sainsbury’s and another of his for Anti-Smoking)
Here’s the ad:
Who made it?
Copywriter: Richard Foster | Art Director: John Horton | Photographer: Graham Ford | Agency: AMV BBDO | Client: Volvo | Year: 1992
The Copy
Here’s the body copy up close.
And here’s the second part:
Copy Structure
Here’s how I’ve structured the body copy for the analysis.
And here’s the other part:
I’ve labelled the sections like this…
Art Analysis
Okay, so the art. What can you see? Well, there are two cars: a Ferrari F40 and a Volvo 480 Turbo. They mirror the headline, or rather, the headline mirrors them. The Volvo dominates the frame and covers the ‘Rari. It’s a Volvo ad, so this makes sense. However, it also subtly positions the Volvo above the Ferrari in this playful comparison. Of course, it’s not serious, but it’s still a subliminal cue.
I’ve shared a couple other comparison ads before (Comfort’s Cacti and the classic Citroën 2CV). We can now add this one to the collection. But how they frame this comparison ad though is worth delving into.
Firstly, and mainly, the irony. The irony is the beating heart of the ad – it’s what helps entice the readers. And for it to work, it needs to be immediately obvious.
So both cars are red (likely leaning into Ferrari’s iconic colour). They’re not the same shade or finish, mind, which adds to the irony. Their alloys are also similar. But again, different enough to add to the irony.
Notice how the background is plain and the floor mirror-like. The focus is completely on the cars. And nothing else.
Headline Analysis
As it should with ‘active’ art, the headline sits back and takes a more passive role. Here, it’s straight-talking and echoes what you can see.
You could argue that putting the Ferrari first gets more attention – they’re a more recognisable brand. And in my opinion, it also makes the ad funnier. They’re not trying to pretend it’s a serious comparison. Instead, they’re putting the Ferrari front and centre (well, to the left) to show they recognise what they’re really saying.
Similarly, the brackets at the end acknowledge the obvious difference between the cars and finish setting up the humour. I think if you know you’re about to read something funny, it’s actually quite engaging. (That might be why I get re-shown the same animal videos on Instagram?). When you know you’re about to be rewarded with a giggle, it makes you want to read on. So, the headline does its job and leads you into the body copy.
We head there next.
Section 1 Analysis
The first sentence addresses the elephant in the room: the fact that, at first glance, this isn’t really a comparison. It transitions from the headline and acknowledges the obvious disparity between the cars. But by admitting the Volvo is no match on the racetrack, Foster utilises what is a bit like the Pratfall Effect to garner more believability.
Next, there’s a small pivot, shifting the focus from track use to the more relatable and relevant road use. Where the Volvo coincidentally excels.
I like Foster’s use of “You’d be right”. As the reader continues, it secures a small commitment, allowing Foster to get his foot in the door for some subtle persuasion and re-ranking later. Because remember, believability works like a wedge. By starting small, you make your reader more receptive to later bolder points.
Section 2 Analysis
In Section 2, we see some clever reframing. What’s a disadvantage in one context might not be in another – and vice versa. So, by disempowering Ferrari’s speed, Foster levels the playing field between them.
I haven’t copied the formatting, so the bracket doesn’t work the same. But in the original, the bracket sits at the top of a new column and demonstrates just how fast and inconsequential 4 seconds really is.
So, by putting both cars in a real-world context, Foster shrinks the gap between them. And as a result, the Volvo has more potential to pull away from the Ferrari. At least, in our minds, anyway.
Section 3 Analysis
This sentence repeats the principle and structure: It takes another ‘winning’ Ferrari characteristic and devalues it by changing the context. It does this through a rhetorical question and brackets that agitate the “reframed point”.
So, on the road of us mere mortals, Ferrari and Volvo are equal. They both travel at the same legal speed limit. And when you think about it, the fact the F40 and 480 Turbo are equal is really 0-2.
Section 4 Analysis
It’s time to drive it home. It’s time to compare the Volvo to genuine competitors.
Before this sentence, Volvo has tapped into the Power of Association (which we’ll look at soon), buffing them up the mental leaderboard. We’ve also now seen how the Volvo “beats” the Ferrari on the road. So, it’s time to take this inflated position and compare it to other models you might consider similar.
This is the first serious sentence so far. And it’s put to good use, demoting direct competitors. Foster shares that the Volvo is faster than the 80 Quattro, 518i and 900 Turbo (which we believe without much question!). Its new position solidifies as the gap between them grows.
Section 5 Analysis
The next sentence returns to the Ferrari comparison but has a serious undertone. The Ferrari and Volvo are “equal” on the road, but now Foster shares some features the Ferrari doesn’t have…
I think “box-steel” is interesting. Most safety cages/frames would be box-steel (I’d have thought?…). But regardless, you don’t even need to know whether other brands have them – or what it is – the specificity makes it sound like something that puts Volvo ahead of others.
The early agreement/commitment seeds fruit here, helping us believe this without any pushback.
Section 6 Analysis
Foster has built momentum, and the use of “What’s more” helps to keep the reader moving while building anticipation.
It’s, like the rest of the ad, tongue-in-cheek, only this time playing on the notion/stereotype that women are impressed by fast cars. And more impressed by the Volvo 480 Turbo…
Inside the humour is the statement that several thousand women have already bought a Volvo. It’s a clever way to disguise social proof and make a sales pitch not feel like one.
Section 7 Analysis
But, of course, correlation doesn’t mean causation. “Admittedly” acknowledges this and makes it funny. I think it also conveys confidence because it frames Volvo’s affordability as a deliberate advantage.
By changing the comparison set (i.e. a supercar and not the real competitors), Foster leverages some price anchoring, further emphasising Volvo’s good value. Although, anything next to a £200k Ferrari will look good value. But I guess that’s kinda the point.
In true Foster fashion, he closes out the ad with a touch of class. He comes full circle (look at the headline) by using “No contest”. It nicely sums up the ad. And by not putting it in brackets, it seems more direct.
It’s a satisfying, memorable way to conclude the ad.
The Psychological Levers
So, I’ve touched on a couple, but let’s address them in more detail: the psychological levers. I think there are three in play here.
The Pratfall Effect
We see this in the early sections. It’s meant tongue-in-cheek but has the same effect. They “own” a “disadvantage” or bad trait and reframe it to help believability in later statements like… being faster than Audi, BMW, and Saab… and the additional safety features that sound more impressive because they’re specific.
The Power of Association
It’s a Volvo rubbing shoulders with a Ferrari. Whether it’s serious or not, Volvo will pick up some “impressive points” that inadvertently change how we see them. Other brands do it today. Some used to pick fights (think Burger King and McDonald’s or Pepsi and Coca-Cola). It gives the smaller brands a bigger platform. Although, I’d imagine it’d dampen Ferrari’s?
Reframing
In Sections 2 and 3, we saw how Foster changed the context to level the playing field between Ferrari and Volvo. This lets them rub shoulders even closer, further boosting Volvo’s rankings compared to genuine competitors. It can be the necessary edge to win more sales.
For a different type of reframing, check this out from Stella Artois.
Closing out: How to get more
Et Voila. Another Foster masterclass. The 1992 D&AD annual had two other ads from this campaign. Both brilliant. Newsletter subscribers got them. So, don’t miss out next time. Get all the ads. And sign up now. You can fill your swipe and learn from some of history’s best advertisers. For free. It’s here:
