What’s her real voice, then? Didn’t she talk like that all the way through “The Nanny”? I’ve never heard her sound any different.
IIRC in her biography she tells how she at one time tried to speak with a lower voice. It sounded completely fake, so she decided just to stick with what comes naturally.
You can hear her real speaking voice several times in “Spinal Tap.” A little bit of an accent, but nowhere near as pronounced as her schtick.
With that tiny waist, she reminds me of a wasp (no, not a WASP).
Yeah, it makes your ears bleed, but look at how successful the advertising is! We all know that it’s an ad for Old Navy. They’ve successfully planted their name in our heads. On the other hand, a lot of ads that people find very funny, and really enjoy watching, are dismal failures because no one can remember the product the ad is selling.
I know, I know, you won’t ever buy anything at Old Navy, because you hate their commercials so much. They don’t care - you’re just one out of a hundred, and achieving brand name recognition with the other 99 viewers is good enough for them!
I like Fran Drescher. There. I said it. I liked “Spinal Tap” and “The Nanny” and her books. I hate Old Navy and wish they hadn’t gotten her for the commercials.
Early Out-
That’s incredibly bad planning on their part, then. The idea isn’t simply to get name recognition; it’s to get positive name recognition. That’s much, much more important that just creating an association for the viewer. If someone decided to sell Idi Amin Cornflakes, are they really at an advantage because so many people know who Idi Amin was? Good lord, no.
So it’s a fallacy, the idea that advertising is successful merely because people talk about it. That’s simply not true. It’s more important that they buy the product, not that they talk about it.
A quick show of hands: Who here isn’t inclined to buy Old Navy on the basis of their ads? Who here has decided to buy Old Navy (or at least consider doing so) on the basis of their ads?
Old Navy commercials…the final resting place for has-been stars that just…have…to…hang…on…a…bit…longer…
They all need to die.
There’s an idea. Go join the 2004 Celebrity Death Pool and list only has-beens who’ve been on Old Navy commercials …
There’s already one down, right? The old lady with the horn-rimmed glasses kicked a year or so ago, I think.
Your second point, first: Dopers probably aren’t a very good statistical sample - probably brighter than average!
On your first point, however, the industry disagrees. Check out this recent column. Particularly intriguing is his reference to the much-hated “Please don’t squeeze the Charmin” campaign. Everyone, and I mean everyone, absolutely hated the commercials. And sales of Charmin skyrocketed. Go figure!
The advertisers, I suspect, are not relying on consumers to make a conscious decision. It’s a much subtler effect they’re after, one in which the buyer thinks, “I need toilet paper.” The next thought that pops into his head is “Charmin.” At the store, that makes him more likely to reach out and grab some rolls of Charmin. It’s insidious, and it seems to work.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Remember, every time Fran Drescher laughs, God kills a kitten.
No, it’s “Every time God kills Fran Drescher, we all laugh, and God gives us each a kitten.”
Something to look forward to…
So she’s saying, “My shit has the penis of an animal?”
“So she’s saying, “My shit has the penis of an animal?””
Eve, you’re becoming more and more lieu - like. You better watch yourself.
She’s my cousin. Not bragging or anything. but it’s true.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
So her real name is Fran ruber ruber?
I actually do not dislike Miss D. She seems to be a very nice person, and gives me hope, because she and I are the same age and she looks fabulous. And I did like the first couple seasons of The Nanny (went downhill quick, though).
But that Old Navy commercial is a weapon of mass destruction. Can we get Bush to declare war on Old Navy?
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. We’re all regular folks who watch TV, and we’ll make the same connections people off the boards will make, to a degree. In that sense we’re a perfect statistical sample.
First of all, that’s my point. Of course the industry disagrees - they’re under the foolish notion that a negative campaign has a positive effect.
Second of all, it’s dishonest to claim that “[e]veryone, and I mean everyone absolutely hated the commercials.” You’re talking out of your ass on that one. It was a wildly popular ad campaign, from everything I’ve heard about it. Would we still be talking about Mr. Whipple at all if it were unpopular? Of course not. It was popular because of the catchy slogan; I can’t fathom why anyone would consider it irritating, and I can’t name a single person who felt so. (I’m not saying that no one found it irritating, but “everyone”?)
Which has zero to do with how annoying the commerical may have been. If the Charmin commercials were actually that annoying, people would absolutely, positively not reach for charmin the moment they thought of toilet paper. A negative connection will NOT sell anything.
The first time I saw that commercial, I was watching TV with my boyfriend. It was over, and without saying a word, we looked at each other with “What the hell?!” expressions. I mean, really. Fran Drescher, a chimp, a telephone switchboard, and Lil Kim. It’s the weirdest freaking thing I’ve ever seen.
Fran Drescher, IIRC, has had many substance-related problems in between The Nanny and now, and is attempting to make a comeback. Honestly, I feel bad for her for her troubles, and wish her well (although I can see many of you wouldn’t feel the same way!). But seriously, someone needs to tell her that mind-altering-chemical-conceived-commercials isn’t the way to do it.
The Smothers Brothers were on the Bonnie Show not too long ago. Am I alone in thinking they are/were hilarious?
I take it you’re not old enough actually to remember the ad campaign ("…from everything [you’ve] heard about it?").
Trust me - people were talking about putting out a contract on Mr. Whipple. If they hung him in effegy, it was only because they couldn’t string him up in person. The mere mention of his name in a room full of people could be counted on to generate a groan, followed by cries of “disemboweling is too good for him!”
Just because we still talk about someone, that doesn’t mean that he was “popular” (see “Stalin” ;)). That whole ad campaign is often cited in support of the proposition that irritating ads are, indeed, often very successful.
I can’t believe that the Old Navy folks are unaware that their ads are annoying. They must think that the ads will work, nonetheless. That belief is grounded in cold, hard sales figures following prior annoying ad campaigns by other companies.
Well, enjoy your Old Navy fleece pullover. I gotta go shovel some of that “mixed precip” we just got (4-5" out near Dulles)!