I didn’t know who the dude was, so I’m grateful for the explanation and the link. Makes *much *more sense now!
From the thread title alone I knew what commercial this was going to be about. I don’t get it either. And none of the explanations in this thread help, except for the ones that say it doesn’t make any sense to them either!
I like the “bionic” noise when Serena smashes the ball at Stephen.
The guy in the original ad in the thread is Ty Burrell, who plays bombastic character Phil Dunphy in the tv series “Modern Family”. The characterization in the ad is basically the same as his character in the show.
No, I figured he was some famous athlete. I have to say though, anybody asking Serena if she played, in reference to any racquet sport, deserves to get whopped.
And I didn’t get the green room bit, at all. So that’s what didn’t make sense to me. Basically, any of it. (And then I thought they were betting on each point and sending the $$ to each other.)
I have to say, it’s kind of a fail as an ad. First of all, I didn’t even remember who the company was. Second, I already knew it was pretty easy to SEND money via Citi. What’s hard is when you are the recipient. Not easy at all.
I think that’s the point. First he asks the question then he gets the first spike. He’s poking her for fun. Her face says prepare for an ass whipping.
The green room part I understood but it does suffer from most of it being cut. It’s the same problem that happens with Super Bowl ads. They start out with a one minute spot then get cut down to 30 seconds or even 15.
It doesn’t need to make sense. It needs to make you remember the name, which it did.
Can I just say that I think this advertising meme is bullshit?
As an illustrator in my past life I had more than a passing association with advertising. I had a subscription to Advertising Age. I worked with a lot of the major advertising agencies in the Dallas/Houston/Austin areas.
Yes, I remember the name Gain but I’m also smart enough to remember they have stupid ads and I won’t be buying their product. The idea that a commercial that causes you to hate the product enough to remember to buy it is nonsense perpetrated on the ad buying corporations.
.
Exactly.
I think the ad execs don’t understand how or even if advertising works, but definitely don’t want to do any studies of the subject. Because they might find it doesn’t work at all like they’ve thought for the last hundred years.
I suspect that, for the most part, they know pretty damned well what works and what doesn’t. I had never heard of Gain before this, and now I’m actually a little bit curious. And, yes, I do fall for advertising all the time. I’m not one of these people who thinks they’re immune.
It’s not like I pretend I am immune myself, but I still think advertising is not as effective as people think.
This ad doesn’t affect me so much, but there are other ads where I sure remember the name, and I will never be buying their product. There are also ads where I love the ad but can’t remember what it’s for.
Neither of those examples are what you would call good investments by the advertisers, but how many people react like me, and how many go buy Gain even if they can’t understand why? I don’t know, but I believe the percentage that react like I do is higher than the corporations believe. But of course, I can’t prove it.
The funny thing is that having the commercial on the beach makes me think of Tide.
You would be wrong about that. Out of interest find some old episodes of The Pitch on demand:
Here you see that different agencies have very different solutions to ad campaigns. Some flat out don’t work.
Also, here is some insight from an insider:
Honestly if there was a formula, all ads would follow it. There isn’t.
To your second point, you have no reference for Gain having just heard about it in this thread. But if, like the others of us who are turned off by the ad, you were exposed to it constantly on your TV you might not be so intrigued.
What makes you think I only heard of it from this thread? Of course I’ve seen the commercial on TV. It’s got Phil Dunphy in it! Of course there’s ad campaigns I hate. But even the ones I hate, I end up remembering the product and sometimes even liking it. (Like the fucking annoying Quizno’s ads back in the day.) After watching this ad, I am a bit curious as to what this “Gain” detergent is like, and now I will actually remember it as a brand name, which I wouldn’t have before.
This line from your post I was responding to
I took “this” to mean ‘this thread’. Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. Apologies offered.
Ah. Sorry. No need for apologies, it’s ambiguous. I meant I haven’t heard of it before this commercial.
There are different goals from advertising. Brand awareness. Sales notifications. New products from familiar brand names. These all work, as far as I can tell. You learn that a thing you might find appealing is available. Can’t complain about that, really, though many do anyway.
But there’s also “weird imagery for the sake of itself” kind of advertising, where they think watercooler talk will be enough to get their product sold. I have doubts that those do much in terms of sales, and think more likely they appeal more to stores and supermarkets rather than consumers.
You’re all wrong. Clearly it’s an unauthorized adaptation of Taylor Swift’s “All Too Well”, a song which revolves around a messy breakup and a forgotten scarf. Tay-Tay oughta sue someone over this. Or write a dis track about them, at least.
I was once in a focus group for a proposed new scent of Gain. (We weren’t supposed to know what the product was but it was obvious.) There were about 25 women in the group, and every single one of them stated that if price were no object, they would use Tide because it cleans best. Gain is known for its strong scent.
It annoyed the heck out of me that the group leader didn’t pick up on the fact that clean is the most important thing to customers, price is second, and scent is maybe third. If Gain wants to increase its sales, they need to step up the “cleans good” feature. I’ve never seen a Gain commercial that focussed on anything except scent.
And Ty Burrell is annoying.
Interestingly, of the top 5 top rated laundry detergents according to Google, Gain has two of those places; Tide none. In Amazon best sellers, it has three of the top 5. I suppose they must be doing something right. (And how have I never heard of this stuff before this commercial? I know Tide, I know All, Purex, but somehow missed Gain. Is it relatively new?)
At any rate, we use Charlie’s Soap in this house. I prefer scented detergents because to me (a man) it makes things seem more “clean”, but it bothers my wife’s skin, so we just use the unscented stuff. I actually have difficulty telling what’s clean and what’s not without that scented cue.