Well, at least now we know who the Antichrist is!
A 1001 Amens and a Me-Too, just for good measure.
Along the same lines, there’s the Etta James (?) “Sunday Kind of Love” commercial for “Dockers”. For me it’s completely ruined a great song, as well as a singer I really like and admire. The sheer number of times it is aired is the real problem. It seems like Levi-Strauss is single-handedly sustaining the viability of both ESPN and ABC in one swell foop…
The simple answer would be to stop watching televised sports-events, but that’s more than I’m willing to do.
I saw him/her say that, but it’s only true in its most extremely generalized sense, so what is the point in repeating it? The point is that ads that appeal to people do work and that there is real danger in annoying or disgusting people with ads because they often don’t work. Which is all that John DiFool was trying to say.
How many people are in your household? How many television viewers are there in the United States?
Your anecdotal response has exactly that ratio of validity.
I see. And you speak for all of America? Or is it the world? How big, exactly, is your ego?
I simply don’t believe that ads that are actively annoying could possibly be effective, and I have changed my purchasing behavior in response to them. Under this idea that advertising is simply done to raise awareness of a brand - something that I’ve heard for years - then its effects are apparently completely unconscious (something I don’t particularly doubt.) But I simply don’t believe that associating displeasure with a brand name makes me more likely to purchase it; if we are talking unconscious effects, than don’t my feelings towards a brand effect my purchasing decisions?
Like you said, Exapno, all there is backing up advertising is theory, not evidence. I believe that advertising in general works, but I simply don’t buy the idea that consumers who are annoyed by an ad are still more likely to purchase the product. Obviously, like you say, some people will enjoy certain ads and others will be annoyed by them. What annoys a person isn’t universal. Nonetheless, I’m sure that if they could, advertisers would choose not to annoy anyone, and I’m certain that an ad that seriously annoys most of its audience is not doing the brand any favors.
I apologize for skirting the line with you in my previous post, Exapno, and I take back what I suggested about your ego.
I’m with you completely. Furthermore, if advertizers would do anything legal to make their commercials memorable (as Exapno suggests, albiet without evidence), why isn’t there more ringing and buzzing and flashing lights, etc.?
There are studies that are now finding that the “Traditional 30 second TVC” is becoming less and less effective, seeing advertisers turning to other means (sorry no cite to hand). So perhaps you will see less of it in the future. (and more movies like The Italian Job)
Do also remember that advertising falls into two general categories, tactical, which is aimed at getting you to take action right now on a special deal, and strategic, which is aimed at simple brand awareness. I have also seen studies that say that for simple brand awareness positive or negative association (i.e whether you liked the ad or found it annoying) makes little difference. In addition, the further we go from the initial exposure, the less likely someone is to remember the circumstances of the exposure, and the more likely they are to remember the brand name, going hand in hand with this is other studies I have seen that show that the simple act of “I can remember the name” (even if I have never used or experienced the product) gives it a higher “trustworthiness” rating - and of course if I trust it, I am more likely to buy it.
I would say the gecko ad to be great if you can remember who they are and what they do. I would be perfectly happy with the results.
As to the Chevy example, “swearing off Chevy” as a family activity is extreme, but the fact that you talked about it with you friends, mentioned the brand etc I would consider to be a positive outcome were it my ad. Afterall - I am increasing my name recall. The Ford Ka spoofs were also great (the cruelty to animal implications aside) - not only are they super memorable (I saw them more than a year ago, and as soon as Ka is mentioned I can visualise the ad) but they also communicate the personality of the car perfectly
When we create ads (I do so for Alfa Romeo) out first objective is always to get people to remember who we are. Whether they rush out and buy is secondary, simply being remembered is what we are aiming for such that when they are considering a purchase, we make it onto the comparison list. As an “ad creator” I can’t influence the product, or whether it is “better” than another (I can influence the perception but we won’t go there), what I can influence is whether you put me on your “comparison list” (talking conmsumer durables here)
My second objective is to be remembered for the “right” qualities (as opposed to the right reasons) In the Ford Ka example, I remember the Ka as being a car that is sporty, confident, even agressive, with a sense of fun, BECAUSE it “bullied” the animals.
For New Zealanders see the Trump / Scotty hilux ads of the late 80’s early 90’s - I recall these ads till this day, and can still tell you what they were trying to convey (although many did find them conveying dangerous things and super annoying).
Go back a little further (for us) and see and see the Mrs Marsh / Colgate / Flouride ads - this was the early 80’s received the “most annoying ad” award many years running, but ask anybody over thirty (from New Zealand) about the ad and I guarantee you they will remember it and the unique selling point of the product.
Whenever I see a Truth.org ad I want to run out and start smoking. I’ve never smoked in my life. I’d say thats a pretty ineffective ad.
Should I ever need to market a product, i would like to hire you. You realize the craps toss that is marketing, and also realize that there are subtle tactics.
Excalibre posits that some marketing techniques may do more harm than good via annoyance. I tend to agree with this logic. I also realize that certain aspects of marketing, profit margins, and brand recognition have nothing at all to do with effective advertising. Some stupid people will buy anything, as long as they recognize the brand name.
Think of the least effective commercial you can remember. To a rational, intelligent person, it would seem to drive business away from the company paying for the ad because of the magnitude of suck that it posseses. The company whose ad it was for, would never have apid for the time, if they weren’t given detailed market research that told them the ad would work for their target demo.
If the ad agengy were just full of hot air, generated no sales from their ad campaigns, and hadn’t a clue about popular culture, they’d sink like a stone. I’m sure some do. My point is, no matter how awful a particular ad campaign may seem to the intelligent man, rest assured that there are a good number of idiots buying the product. Don’t get me started on the Nielsen rating system.
Many reasons, the most important of which is because ads aren’t delivered to you in isolation. One single flashing buzzing ad will get your attention. A commercial block - which on cable may have 10 ads in a row - all of which are flashing and buzzing will drive you away. Besides, there are many ways to make a commercial memorable, and - I can’t keep emphasizing this too much - there are many different types of people in the audience. You have to vary your techniques depending on the product and the target audience. For some people annoyance works as a technique. And it’s nothing new. Back in the 60s some of the most famous and effective ads were highly annoying, like the headache symbolized by a hammer that beat in your head until you took the right aspirin. People hated that ad, and sales soared.
Whatever you do in your household, what I do in my household, is not significant. Television ads reach mass audiences. Again, they aren’t supposed to resonate with everyone. They may alienate some people. But that isn’t important. Millions of dollars are at stake whenever a product gains even a single point of market share. If an ad gets that audience, even if it’s only one percent of the total audience, then it’s effective. What you or I or anyone in this thread thinks of that ad is of no meaning.
You are affected by advertising. So am I. So is everybody. Advertising does some of the work that a free consumer market requires. It makes us aware of what products are available, what their good points are, what brand names are out there to look for, where to buy them. Whether you can point to a particular ad for this information or not, you have to use something when you decide to buy a product. You are more likely to buy products that you are familiar with than those you’ve never heard of. You are more likely to buy products you associate with good points than those that aren’t. You are more likely to buy products whose features you think you need than those you don’t. You are more likely to buy, period, when you have been primed to. And you buy thousands upon thousands of products every year. You have to buy insurance. What causes you to go with one brand out of the thousands available? You don’t have to buy an iPod, but what makes you think you do, and why an iPod over the dozens of competitors?
Advertising is a component in every one of these decisions. A component, not necessarily the driving factor, which makes studying effectiveness a nightmare for anyone who tries. You can’t design a mass ad for one person. You can’t design a mass ad to work with all of the dozens of consumer types that advertisers identify. All ads will fail to work with most people. That doesn’t matter, if they do work with enough of the right people.
In short, it’s not about you. Really. Nobody cares if you hate a particular ad. All they care about is that your household is buying stuff like crazy every single day, and something of what they do will affect those purchases in ways you can’t identify or articulate.
Advertising is a mass art. You may as well complain about music. Think of all the songs you’ve listened to and vowed not to ever buy, all the groups you look down on, all the genres you think are stupid. Nobody cares. They’re not for you. They’re selling to somebody else, somebody who likes what you see as the annoyance or the blandness or the stupidity. Saying an ad isn’t effective because you don’t like it is exactly like saying that a song isn’t effective because you don’t like it. It’s not about you, or me, and any individual. It’s mass art. It just needs to click with the right number of people in the right audience. That you get your ears in the way is a problem for you, but has nothing to do with the song or the radio station.
Try thinking about advertising as the music business with a different format for the product. Maybe the whole way it’s structured will make more sense.