Meanwhile… (in a college town, somewhere north of elsewhere)
… we started going to Quizno’s, because those spongmonkeys* were so weirdly cute.
“We like the moooooon” **
*(no sponges involved)
** We like the moon cause it is close to us…it is up in the sky it’s up there very high but not as high as maybe dirigibles or zeppelins or lightbulbs and maybe clouds and puffins…
I’ve never seen these “Go Compare” ads (just sampled a couple on Youtube) are they a West Coast thing or something?
Forget the spongemonkey-remember how quickly they shitcanned the gay oven? <shudder>
All I know is that there are several products on my shit list for annoying or aggravating ad campaigns, but maybe the likes of me are outweighed by those who see a Geico ad and instead of getting pissed off they actually are compelled to buy their insurance.
British.
Another comparison site Confused .com ran an advert for a fair while where half way through the advert the spokesman starts shouting very loudly and apparently angrily.
It used to infuriate me so much, (one minute sitting in front of the t.v. quite happily enjoying the programme the next minute not), that even though they’ve dropped the ad now I will never ever use that site for as long as I live.
It is quoted here in almost every thread we start about the adverts we hate - so some people must believe it.
I do not. I believe that it is *necessary *for an ad to make you remember the product - and sometimes sufficient, but not always.
Hm, well maybe your dad can address this question:
I once conducted a student directed course about corporate culture for which we had Tod Gitlin as a guest speaker. He stated that the purpose of a good deal of advertising was not to gain market share but rather simply to bolster corporate ego. That it is to say, it was aimed at solidifying a sense of identity and success for investors and employees. He elaborated by noting that many brands are allocated advertising revue regularly, regardless of sales, simply because the company can easily afford it.
By the same token, he also pointed out that many brands are advertised not because the company sees it as essential for success, but simply because the company is afraid to take the chance of not advertising. Again, the argument goes, if they can afford it, why risk not doing it? If it ain’t broke,…
Cocacola is probably the best example. Few products could have a more thoroughly world-wide name-brand recognition, so there is little need to make people “remember” the product. And there is obviously little need for making a “case” to buy Coke (They tried the “new and improved” thing, and it didn’t work.)
At best, what they seek to do is generate positive association with the product, to ward off possible preference for alternatives from 7-Up, but the real answer to that is to just to create their own version, (Sprite, Powerade, etc.) Advertising Coke itself as a drink, however, doesn’t get people to choose Powerade over Gatorade.
Of course, Coke may not be a fair example for this argument, because the brand itself has become (literally, in some places) synonymous with “soft drink.” So really, what Coke wants to do is simply make people consume more drinks. If someone is going to buy a soft drink, chances are–for now, at least–that it’s going to be Coke.
But it makes one wonder: If Coke were to stop advertising, what would happen?
I think a lot of you are moving from a false premise. You think an ad fails simply if YOU don’t like it. I think you’re forgetting that there is the chance that you are not part of the target audience of that product or ad campaign. I remember being told by a marketing professor that if you don’t “get” an ad, that it’s likely that you’ve moved out of the target audience (gotten older, etc.) Besides a lot of products/marketing are targeted toward young people when they are just developing product loyalty. Trust me, no matter the ad campaign for Pepsi, I am still going to drink Coke. Once you develop that brand loyalty for a different brand, no matter the ad campaign presented to you, you are not going to buy the product. You are not part of the target audience. So, just because YOU don’t get an ad or your are put off by it, doesn’t mean everyone is and that’s who they are shooting for.
This reminds me of the infamous zima ad of 1995 where the zima guy beats the old woman from the ‘wheres the beef’ commercial with a bag of doorknobs.
I think if an ad makes you curious as to what it is about, it may have succeeded. Then again it may just piss you off too.
Supposedly ads try to link to various emotional states (freedom, being desired, security) but supposedly you can only do this with so many products. You can’t claim every product on the shelf will result in freedom or security.
Maybe… except from the OP the premise goes:
It could be the generic you. Except it goes on to explain:
I won’t speak for the original poster, but given what I’ve quoted, it would seem to imply that the conversation says if an add makes *you *remember it, it has done its job. It doesn’t say “If it has made the target audience remember it, it has done its job.” That would be a different discussion.
There are many, many once-dominant products that simply fell off the face of the earth when they stopped advertising. There are companies that buy up formerly well-known products and gladly “coast” with the small name recognition the product still has.
Look through old magazines and TV show clips and you’ll see adds for stuff like Odorono and 5-Day deodorant, Breck shampoo (which is now owned by Dollar Tree, of all things!) and others. Those products are still made, but are so far off the radar it’s doubtful most people under 50 even know they exist.
For a look at a company that has made a business model out of snapping up “orphan” brands, check here.
As for Coke, remember that advertising is only a small part of their total marketing efforts. The company also invests heavily in buying shelf space in supermarkets, getting the soft drink fountains at fast-food restaurants, etc.
Here’s my take. The point isn’t “I remember this product, now I’ll go buy it.” The point is that in order to be given prestige, a product must be well known. If lots of people remember the product based on the ad, even after the annoying ad campaign is over and people aren’t thinking about the ads themselves, it has been established that a large number of people are aware of the product’s existence. People know it exists; therefore, it is a legitimate company.
In fact, the “Candidate X is a puppy-eating pedophile” campaign is good publicity. If Opposing Party Y has to spend all that time and money just to run ads showing why people shouldn’t vote for X, this suggests that Y believes that people actually will vote for X and that X is a legitimate threat.
Plenty paper towels (formerly Bounty) have raised the stakes in the “horribly memorable” advertising stakes by introducing a character names Juan Sheet (get it?), a quasi-Zorro figure who arrives to clean up spills with only “one sheet”. It is disturbing and awful on so many levels, yet will stay with me for years.
No it’s not true, you also have the danger of negatitivity. And in today’s web world it’s even worse 'cause you’re apt to post your opinion on blogs and sites like this and in a Google search that negativitity comes up first, well maybe 
Memorable ads? Who can forget the Judderman? I used to hope it would turn up while I watched TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etS4b2hQK_E
A work of art. Except I could never remember the name of the drink, and no, I never tried it. Vodka-based alcopop? Gross.
The last few Cadbury’s adverts have put me off buying Cadbury’s stuff. I recall the ads rather well but they annoy the fuck out of me. Let’s go back to Flake fellatio. That was memorable in a good way.