“The Google Chrome Japan ad is the best we have ever tested”, you say, basing this fact on the engagement with the logo. I don’t deny that the logo is the centre of attention for thirty seconds.

“Think Eyetracking tested 30 internet users in one day and of the 30, 22 said they would consider downloading it. Of the eight respondents who said they would not consider downloading the main reason stated was that they did not know what Google Chrome was.”

That’s more interesting. Because the ad never says what the product is, either you’re saying that 22 people had heard of the product and that this ad was the tipping point to get them to download it, or you’re saying that 22 people were quite happy to download something they’d never heard of. As a control, did you ask these internet users whether they were aware of what Google Chrome was before they saw the ad?

And did “the story” which people were apparently so engaged in manage to communicate the consumer benefit of Google Chrome? i.e. did people say why they’d download it?

If the point of the ad is to get people comfortable with the Google Chrome logo – a logo almost unused in the product itself – then I’m not surprised it’s done so well in your research.

Picking up what Alex says, this looks like an awareness campaign designed to introduce a new (for most people) sub-brand; Chrome tied to their main brand; Google.

The music and animation both leverage the known attractive attributes of Google; friendly, easy, simple, light, quick (cue argument about whether these are deserved), and invest the new brand Chrome with those feelings.

If the viewer happens to be paying attention (more likely on the ‘net than on broadcast TV), they might recognise the browser elements, and if they are really motivated they might pick up the de-clutter and speed elements, but the lizard-brain stuff is the music, the colours and the known brand.

Of course because Google is an incredibly open, transparent, friendly company they’ll doubtless release their research informing this campaign, and any research on the effectiveness. Let’s all hold our breath shall we?

I suppose it might work as part of a larger campaign, but I’d say that marketing web browsers via traditional media is akin to throwing large wadges of cash into a bottomless pit; still, they probably have the cash to throw.

That aside, the double standards in how creativity (read, un-measurable fun stuff) is allowed on the TV ads but not allowed in product development seems a little short-sighted.

My understanding is that only later have quotes appeared from Google suggesting they may run as TV spots. I’m guessing this has probably stemmed from Google requiring an easy way to explain the short video pieces to the press?

That aside, I agree that these are pretty useless as stand alone ads. More to the point, surely they need a sub heading: “Only available on Windows. Err, yeah, sorry.”