Time and time again, I’ve seen this kind of conversation:
A: I saw an ad for some noodle bar that was just a 30 second collection of short clips of different people vomiting noodles, finishing with the logo for Bob’s Noodle Bar. WTF?
**B: **But you remembered the product, right? So the ad was successful!
Does anyone really believe this? That an ad merely has to stick in the mind of the viewer? That it can be considered successful on that sole criterion, even if it alienates or repels the audience?
Or is this just a bit of bullshit spun by advertising executives, to make it harder for people to accuse them of failure?
I hate that argument. I can think of far more products where the ads have convinced me never to try it than those that have convinced me to buy it. I know the ad execs will say that it’s all subliminal and subconscious, but that’s awfully convenient. “It’s working, really, we promise! You just can’t see or measure it, but keep paying us!”
In defence of advertising executives* I believe that line of argument actually to be a response to a criticism - there are all too many people who will happily swear that “advertising doesn’t work on me”. If you hear that often enough, as I imagine advertising executives do, it’s a short step to pointing out just how fallacious this is by reminding people that they know not only brand names and jingles but a surprising amount about e.g. pricing, calorie content, country of manufacture (Vorsprung durch Technik, e.g.) despite their professed immunity to advertising.
From that, I believe, the idea has developed that even if you don’t “like” an advert, you can’t help but be affected by it. This is pernicious, because it leads to execrations such as Michael Winner’s Esure ads and the irredeemably, abysmally despicable Go Compare horror which are sold to clients on the basis that they’ll make an impression. It’s desparately wrong, but I think it’s based on an originally uncontentious idea that’s mutated into a fallacy.
*I’m not one, but I’m related to some through marriage.
I agree with you, mainly. There is a mjor difference between ‘being affected by it’, ie recognising the brand, and having good associations with the product that make a purchase more likely.
As you’ve pointed out, we’ve all been affected by the ‘Go Compare’ adverts. To the point where it’s an instant channel change when it comes on.
It seems to me that a clear indication that this is a fallacy is negative campaigning. If all you needed to do was to enforce memory of a product than campaign ads that say “Candidate X is a fascist communist who molests puppies” would actually help Candidate X’s chances.
Clearly, the solution to this sort of “all publicity is good publicity” moron is to ask what they think of your new “[Moron] is a paedophile who was caught watching child pornography” ad campaign.
My marketing professor in college swore by the statement. His rationale was that your initial response might be negative, but the product name will stick in your mind. When you are exposed again to the product, you will remember the name and the next exposure may be in a positive light.
Your brain does not like to have contradictions so you will consciously explore the product on your own to find out for yourself. If you never had the negative exposure in the first place, you would never have known about the product and have never bought it, so they were no worse off.
Wrong, there was a radio ad a while back that started with some stupid whining brat whining “Mom, Jerry’s HITTING Me!”, with the sounds of other whiny brats in the background
I never found out what they were advertising (child discipline classes? legalizing audio torture?, birth-control devices?), because as soon as I heard the first eardrum-shredding screeches, I turned the radio OFF, no, I didn’t change the channel, I simply stopped listening
Utter failure of an ad, that was, I remember that it was irritating me, but it never got to deliver the sales pitch as I shut it off as soon as I heard it
Same thing for any of the stupid “male enhancement” crap, at the first sound of “This…is Bob”, the TV goes OFF, This is my remote control
A telemarketer pitch started with “this is not a telemarketing call”, my response, “okay then, this is not me hanging up on you…” :click:
Yeah, I can sort of see how that would work when an ad is mildly annoying or something, but in many cases, an ad pushes beyond into the realm of being repellent and I will purposely defy it.
I could list some examples, but I don’t feel like giving them even that bit of publicity.
I think the highly repetitive nature of many advertising mediums argues against this. It might work for print ads, which you’ll encounter once as you read the paper or magazine and then drop, but radio and TV ads are hammered over and over again into your skull. They’ll come to dominate and define your reaction to the product or brand, I’m thinking.
They’re worse off in the sense that they wasted their money on an ineffective ad campaign. They’re also worse off compared to how they’d be faring if they had run a pleasant ad campaign.
Building brand awareness isn’t sure-fire, either. I have eaten at Arby’s maybe four times in my life. I see their ads all the time. I know what products they offer. I know what they cost. I don’t think their products are worth the money. If it weren’t for their ads, I might (every few years) forget why I don’t like Arby’s and have lunch at one to see if they’ve gotten better. Their ads are actually saving me the time and money of rediscovering why I never go to Arby’s.
It’s not even new products that have terrible commercials. A few years ago Subway ran those execrable “Subway dinner theatre” commercials starring Jon Lovitz. I was already familiar with the brand, and liked their food, but I refused to buy anything from Subway for the duration of that ad campaign (and it was a long campaign). I don’t find Subway’s current ads to be objectionable, and will on occasion buy from them, but nowhere near as often as before the Lovitz campaign. I just never got back into the habit of buying their products.
I have no illusions about being immune to advertising. Sometimes I can even feel it working on me. I imagine it often works on me without my realizing it. But when an ad campaign actively pisses me off, I deliberately refuse to buy what they’re selling.
The old adage that “any publicity is good publicity” is just something that hack admen say after they’ve failed.
The problem with bad advertising is that throughout the last 100 years there have been ad campaigns that have been uninspired, annoying and downright offensive – but which were spectacularly effective. Conversely there have been intelligent, well-conceived, memorable campaigns that were utter failures.
In fact, the only things in advertising that seem to work consistently are recognition (which in this context means making sure the viewer knows they’re seeing an ad for Tide, not Cheer, or Target, not Wal-Mart) and repetition.
While “any publicity is good publicity” may not be true in all cases, “no publicity is bad publicity” almost certainly is.
There was a similar claim in a thread yesterday about those weird animated online ads-- dancing silhouettes behind “Obama wants you to go do something!” or a lady doing yoga while the ad shills some financial service-- or the ones will odd still photos, like a seemingly homeless guy. “You remember the ad? SUCCESS!” (sorry, no link to the thread, posting from a crappy handheld device)
Well, yeah, I remember the ad later, but have no idea what service or company was being advertised, so it seems like a failure to me.