# Least effective TV ads? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 10, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220 "2006-06-10T17:38:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MacTech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MacTech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacTech)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/21 "2006-06-10T22:48:05Z")
thanks to the incessant amount of spam I recieve at work, any “male enhancment” adverts that appear on my TV _IMMEDIATELY_ get muted and/or the channel changed, these adverts actively piss me off, it’s bad enough i recieve spam about that crap, the last thing i want to see and hear is multimedia spam about that crap… IMHO, the only way to stop these adverts and the subsequent spams is through liberal use of high-yield nuclear weapons on both the spammers and advertisers that hawk the product, and the companies that make the product… ---
**Author:** ![blinkingblinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea5d25/32.png) [@blinkingblinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blinkingblinking)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/22 "2006-06-10T23:50:40Z")
Quote from Pfizer’Australian website “Designed to raise awareness of LISTERINE’s germ killing properties, the first commercial called ‘Bomb’ showed LISTERINE exploding inside a man’s mouth. The slogan ‘It’s dynamite against germs’ was carried through in 3 more commercials featuring a battlefield, a boxing glove, and tiny ‘bombs’ between a man’s teeth. The campaign was a major success, cementing LISTERINE’s number one position in the market and driving strong sales.” I always looked at the ad and thought why would that ad drive me to put that stuff in my mouth. It put me off, but they thought it drove sales. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/23 "2006-06-10T23:58:00Z")
> [@John DiFool](#): > > Well let’s see…I got my car insurance with Allstate, I refuse to drink Red Bull, and > I haven’t been to a Burger King in about 6 months, so I’d say all 3 campaigns were > dismal failures as far as I’m concerned. Just because some naked streaking idiot > wearing a lampshade on his head gets my attention doesn’t necessarily mean he > will get my approval, or ensure I will buy his product (if any)… Did you miss the part where **Exapno** said, “No ad in the history of time has made every single viewer rush out and buy the product”? In times past, I’ve also heard people say things like “This commercial didn’t motivate me to buy their product, so it must be a failure!” These people seem to be under the impression that all human beings think alike, and that we all respond equally to the same stimuli. With all due respect to those individuals though, common sense dictates otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/24 "2006-06-11T01:04:52Z")
This is going back more than 25 years but the ad campaign Schlitz Beer ran has to win some sort of booby prize for driving people away from their product. Until the late 70’s, Schlitz had been the second most popular beer in the U.S. behind Bud and its commercials urging consumers to “Go for the Gusto!” were all over television. But Schlitz, in its infinite corporate wisdom, saw fit to jettison this successful ad campaign in favor of one that (as I remember) mostly featured some stereotypical macho types threatening a wimpy off-screen voice with physical violence after he had the temerity to suggest they try a beer other than Schlitz. The campaign–which was dubbed by advertising and media wags as “Drink Schlitz or I’ll Kill You!”–was such a resounding failure that it (and the fact that the same corporate brain trust decided to implement a cheaper brewing process that exponentially increased the beer’s foul taste) caused Schlitz sales to plummet until the product all but disappeared from most supermarket beer aisles by the mid 80’s. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/25 "2006-06-11T01:22:34Z")
There’s a current commercial for Heineken with the most annoying earworm since “Macarena,” “Don’tcha Wish Your Girlfriend Was Hot Like Me” or whatever it’s called. The premise is, seemingly, that the stubby green bottle is singing the song (I guess). Which is ridiculous. For beer commercials, you need to convince me that the beer will quench my thirst or get me hot girls, not that the bottle is itself sexy. It’s replete with rush shots and flashing lights. It still looks like a fucking bottle, the same sitting in my recycling bin (it’s a Corona, not a Heineken. They’re not getting my business for this idiocy for a while). Fuckin’ stupid, I tell ya. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/26 "2006-06-11T01:46:59Z")
There have been countless studies and a kajillion dollars spent on consultant fees to learn what makes an ad good (i.e., effective). And as someone who’s spent 30 years in marketing communications, I can tell you the answer. No one knows. Every rule has its own contradiction. Witty, clever ads are supposed to make you think well of the sponsor, except that 1) a lot of people remember the joke, but not the sponsor and 2) a lot of people either don’t get the joke, or don’t think it’s funny. Visually stunning ads are supposed to glue your eyes to the TV. Except that people who look don’t listen, so the message isn’t received. Annoying, urgent, hard-sell ads actually do get people into the store. However, if they find that it isn’t really THE GREATEST SALE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND they’ll turn around and walk out and be twice as hard to convince the next time. Celebrity testimonials work if the celebrity seems to have credibility talking about the product – unless you don’t like the celebrity. The only rule of thumb that has ever been consistently successful is repetition. The more times a person sees the ad, the better the chance of it having an effect. And even repetition has a point of diminishing returns. That’s why creative geniuses get paid big bucks and get fired quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/27 "2006-06-11T03:38:03Z")
> [@volvelle](#): > > I remember an d for, I think, an internet company, that involved firing hamsters out of a small cannon in an effort to shoot them through the “O” in the company’s name. Most of them missed. The idea was that they wanted you to write angry letters to them so you’d remember their name. > > I can’t remember their name, but, damn, that was one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen on TV. That was for [outpost.com](http://outpost.com). My wife came home a full _fifteen minutes_ after I saw that commercial for the first time. She found me lying on the floor, laughing so hard tears were streaming down my face. It wasn’t the funniest thing I’ve ever seen, but it certainly brought out the biggest bout of laughter in my life. ---
**Author:** ![Chanteuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de053/32.png) [@Chanteuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chanteuse)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/28 "2006-06-11T05:36:46Z")
> [@Hal Briston](#): > > That was for [outpost.com](http://outpost.com). > > My wife came home a full _fifteen minutes_ after I saw that commercial for the first time. She found me lying on the floor, laughing so hard tears were streaming down my face. It wasn’t the funniest thing I’ve ever seen, but it certainly brought out the biggest bout of laughter in my life. I found the [video](http://giesbers.net/video/outpost.com-gerbils.mov) and, dammit, that’s funny! Of course, it’s possible that I just have a sick sense of humor, because I laughed my ass off at the Sportka ads with the cat and the pigeon (c’mon, now, they _were_ fake!)! ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/29 "2006-06-11T08:52:22Z")
Any ad then ends with a variation of the phrase “Ask your doctor is Zxgytrowrzzy is right for you.” Usually, I haven’t got a fuckin’ clue what the drug is for or whether it is for men or women. For all I know, it could be a drug to help me grow a third nipple. ---
**Author:** ![Anastasaeon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@Anastasaeon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anastasaeon)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/30 "2006-06-11T09:23:33Z")
> [@Chanteuse](#): > > I found the [video](http://giesbers.net/video/outpost.com-gerbils.mov) and, dammit, that’s funny! Of course, it’s possible that I just have a sick sense of humor, because I laughed my ass off at the Sportka ads with the cat and the pigeon (c’mon, now, they _were_ fake!)! Oh, dear, that _was_ funny. Much in the same vein as [this commercial](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7Da4-uitg), which I haven’t actually seen aired yet. (I wonder if it will?) I laughed so hard, while getting my ticket to hell punched. And I’m a cat\* lover\*. ---
**Author:** ![LiveOnAPlane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@LiveOnAPlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiveOnAPlane)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/31 "2006-06-11T14:23:15Z")
> [@blinkingblinking](#): > > Quote from Pfizer’Australian website “Designed to raise awareness of LISTERINE’s germ killing properties, the first commercial called ‘Bomb’ showed LISTERINE exploding inside a man’s mouth. The slogan ‘It’s dynamite against germs’ was carried through in 3 more commercials featuring a battlefield, a boxing glove, and tiny ‘bombs’ between a man’s teeth. The campaign was a major success, cementing LISTERINE’s number one position in the market and driving strong sales.” > > I always looked at the ad and thought why would that ad drive me to put that stuff in my mouth. It put me off, but they thought it drove sales. Totally irrelevant, but your post reminded me of an old Redd Foxx comedy album, where he is talking about Listerine, or anyway, mouthwash in general. And he’s talking about how it kills germs in your mouth. And he goes (more or less), “I don’t know about you but I don’t WANT anything DEAD in my mouth!” I thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/32 "2006-06-11T15:30:26Z")
I always think that the stupidest adds are the ones where they do get your attention (either positively or negatively), but then don’t tell you what the hell they are selling. My traditional favorite is the old 80’s Rogaine commercials where they would show people going out skiing or surfing or whatever, and chanting “Rogaine…with Minoxidol. Rogaine…with **Minoxidol**. _Rogaine_…with Minoxidol.” But they never said what in the world Rogaine (with Minoxidol) does. Certainly name recognition is a good thing, but really that’s mostly if you’re selling something that is bought in a store, where you might see it on the shelf and go “Oh, yeah I remember that commercial, I wonder what that is.” But for something where you need to call up and order it, you kinda need to know what you are calling to order. If you’re relying on the customer to have done his research so that he recognizes the name, then well, he’s already done his research and decided what he’ll buy. If he hasn’t done research, then once he starts to do it, instead of starting off by searching first for Rogaine which he would have done if he had known it was a baldness cure, he’ll just start searching for “baldness cures” so he might run into two or three competitor products before getting to yours. My current favorite add of this type is one here in Tokyo that’s just a billboard of a bunch of girls in their underwear bunched up together laughing. But…unless you look reaaaaaally close, you’ll never see the bottle of Dove soap that is hidden in one corner and takes up all of 0.5% of the add. I saw the thing like twenty times before I even saw what the product was, and even now I’m not sure it was Dove. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/33 "2006-06-11T17:20:02Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > I always think that the stupidest adds are the ones where they do get your attention (either positively or negatively), but then don’t tell you what the hell they are selling. > > My traditional favorite is the old 80’s Rogaine commercials where they would show people going out skiing or surfing or whatever, and chanting “Rogaine…with Minoxidol. Rogaine…with **Minoxidol**. _Rogaine_…with Minoxidol.” But they never said what in the world Rogaine (with Minoxidol) does. Certainly name recognition is a good thing, but really that’s mostly if you’re selling something that is bought in a store, where you might see it on the shelf and go “Oh, yeah I remember that commercial, I wonder what that is.” But for something where you need to call up and order it, you kinda need to know what you are calling to order. If you’re relying on the customer to have done his research so that he recognizes the name, then well, he’s already done his research and decided what he’ll buy. If he hasn’t done research, then once he starts to do it, instead of starting off by searching first for Rogaine which he would have done if he had known it was a baldness cure, he’ll just start searching for “baldness cures” so he might run into two or three competitor products before getting to yours. These ads appear because federal rules require a listing of side effects and problems if the drug’s curative claim is made. No matter how they try to squeeze them down, they take up a huge percentage of the ad. And they’re a downer to the sunny message the ad is trying to convey. The compromise is getting the name across repetitively in the ad so that the target will remember to ask a doctor about it. These are prescription drugs, remember. You can’t make up your mind what you want to buy and then just go buy it. And it doesn’t matter if research is done. The assumption - probably a good one - is that you’ll skip over unfamiliar names for competitor’s products and ask about the one you remember and associate with the breeze blowing through your hair. I’m lecturing again, but if you don’t understand the purpose of the ad, then you can’t critique how effective it is towards achieving that purpose. And quick, name the competitors to Rogaine without googling. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2006, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/34 "2006-06-11T18:06:15Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > I’m lecturing again, but if you don’t understand the purpose of the ad, then you can’t critique how effective it is towards achieving that purpose. > > And quick, name the competitors to Rogaine without googling. EM, I want to apologize if I sounded nasty with the ‘lecturing’ comment, btw. You’ve been nothing but informative. I just – well, forget what I just, I’m sorry for being prickly about it. Heaven knows I can hold forth a bit, and if we can’t do it here, where can we, right? I thought the same thing, anyway: Yeah, but that was actually smart of Rogaine, because **now they are Rogaine**. They’re not even Jell-O, with the legal nightmare that is becoming a generic term; they’re THE hair-replacement product full stop. Anyone else is playing catchup. So the campaign worked, indisputably. But. But there is a limit to its power, and furthermore…there are other ways to assert your brand. Marketing by annoyance is not the only advertising philosophy in the world. And since I think ads can be, have been, **should be** art (Ridley Scott got his start where? You got it, give that Doper a cigar, in commercials)…I think complaints about annoying ads are legit. Because an ad can be effective from the perspective of the seller, but still objectionable for the buyer. Is that making sense? Just because the buyer is buying doesn’t mean they like the ad. In some cases, it means they have nowhere else to buy, or nowhere in their price range. In many cases, it means they are so insensitized to the poor art in advertising that they just don’t care anymore, like…non-voters, in a way. Yes, it works for the seller. But is it the best possible arrangement for both buyer and seller? Isn’t the artistic approach, which also works, just as indisputably efficient? Wit and art and sincerity actually do move units, it’s just that they’re not as easy to pull off as button-pushing. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/35 "2006-06-12T00:08:08Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > I’m lecturing again, but if you don’t understand the purpose of the ad, then you can’t critique how effective it is towards achieving that purpose. > > And quick, name the competitors to Rogaine without googling. I wasn’t aware that the side-effects list thing was mandatory (way back when.) That makes sense then for the setup of the adds. However, I would still argue that Rogaine is “Rogaine” because there were no other brands advertising on TV. It’s not hard to win over your competitors in advertising when there are no other guys advertising. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/36 "2006-06-12T01:43:47Z")
> [@Ensign Edison](#): > > Just because the buyer is buying doesn’t mean they like the ad. In some cases, it means they have nowhere else to buy, or nowhere in their price range. In many cases, it means they are so insensitized to the poor art in advertising that they just don’t care anymore, like…non-voters, in a way. > > Yes, it works for the seller. But is it the best possible arrangement for both buyer and seller? Isn’t the artistic approach, which also works, just as indisputably efficient? Wit and art and sincerity actually do move units, it’s just that they’re not as easy to pull off as button-pushing. The artistic approach is not “just as indisputably efficient.” As you said yourself, consumers can be “so insensitized to the poor art in advertising that they just don’t care anymore” – in which case the advertiser is spending money on style that doesn’t gain any sales. There’s no surefire key to success in creating effective ads, but there is one surefire key to failure – creating an ad for yourself, rather than the customer. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/37 "2006-06-12T02:53:23Z")
[Herb](http://www.tvacres.com/admascots_herb.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Chanteuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de053/32.png) [@Chanteuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chanteuse)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/38 "2006-06-12T03:14:44Z")
> [@Anastasaeon](#): > > Oh, dear, that _was_ funny. Much in the same vein as [this commercial](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7Da4-uitg), which I haven’t actually seen aired yet. (I wonder if it will?) I laughed so hard, while getting my ticket to hell punched. And I’m a cat\* lover\*. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That is hilarious! Looks like something for AFV, doesn’t it! I had to muffle the laughter so as not to wake up my sleeping family! ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/39 "2006-06-12T03:20:54Z")
Just another ring in from the “de gustibus non disputandum est” section–I found the Quiznos Spongemonkey and Wolf Boy ads absolutely hilarious and they’re the reason I even tried the restaurant in the first place. There was something irresistably apropos about wanting to ask the counter drones if they stock wolf nipple chips that kept me coming back time after time–I knew I’d get a blank stare so I never bothered… but the ads were funny and the sandwiches are great! I also love the car insurance ads with the horrible squirrels causing accidents then high fiving each other–I’m a sicko, and obviously the target for some of these weird ass ads… ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220/40 "2006-06-12T03:55:01Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > That’s what advertising is all about. That separates effective advertising from non-effective advertising. Liking an ad is about the least meaningful thing one can say about it. I cannot and do not accept the theory you and others are proposing here. In my household, we jump immediately and unanimously to change the channel whenever, say, a Geico ad or that annoying Mariah Carey (or whoever) ad comes on! These ads have a **huge** negative impact on our behavior. None of us will EVER drink Pepsi again or buy Gieco insurance! We’d rather chew on live rats, or even have them chew on us! Once not too long ago, NBC aired a particularly long commercial during the Leno show for one or another model Chevy, and not only did we stop watching Leno for at least a month, we sent in nasty emails to NBC and General Electric and GM and we swore to ourselves we would NEVER buy or even _consider_ buying ANY Chevy product as long as we lived. It became an instant family tradition that we would hold our children and grandchildren to as long as they ever lived. I was once phoned up to take what they claimed was a “scientific poll”. I was exactly in their target demographic. They told me I was to watch a new sitcom they were thinking of airing and report back with my comments. The show was truly horrible (even worse than other sitcoms), and the commercials were truly annoying, but then, aren’t almost all of them? (Which is just what you claim they _should_ be if they’re to be remembered!) When they called back the day after for their poll, it soon became clear that what they were _really_ trying to find out was how effective the _ads_ were. They asked me question after question about the ads – which as I said were quite annoying – and I could not recall a single damned thing about any of them! Whereas I’ve got lots of positive things to say about the calm and respectable Dyson vacuum cleaner ads (except, so far, I haven’t bought one since I already have a good one). And I speak from personal experience as well. In high school, I was instructed by Sister Mary Whatsername that I should make a particular PA-system announcement as memorable as possible, so I started it by playing a recording of an old-fashioned bell-type telephone ringing several times. No one remembered what the announcement was for and no one was paying attention because they were too annoyed at the noise. I have absolutely no idea why I wasn’t given a full-bore schoolhouse beating for that crime, but I’d have done it to someone else who tried it! The main point being that I am convinced that advertisers _do_ in fact, ultimately want to change the behavior of the buyer in their favor and not just be remembered, since remembering and thereby reacting very, very negatively to annoying ads is just what I – and I believe most people – actually do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/least-effective-tv-ads/360220.md?page=3)