I recall seeing some commercials a while back for huge companies like ConAgra and ADM. These are undoubtedly giant companies and they make products (or ingredients/components) that tens of millions of Americans and others around the world use every single day, but generally don’t sell directly to the public (while I’ve seen frozen burritos with the ConAgra stamp on them, I have yet to see a bottle of ADM brand corn syrup in the store).
Certianly, they would have to make sales calls to commodity purchasers for food processors and the like, but why put an ad on TV for the layperson to see?
The only thing I could think of is if there was a scandal and the company was trying to do some quick damage control although I don’t recall hearing about any scandals at the time.
Those companies make some sort of product or service, and they want someone to buy it. Even if their buyers are other large corporations, there’s still someone somewhere (or several someones) who’s going to make the decision. It might also have an impact on their stock price, which they probably want to keep high.
They’re probably advertising to potential share holders. If you see ADM on a list of poential investmants, they’re banking on you remebering the ad and not going
People who work for regulatory agencies watch TV, too.
Basically, companies like ADM, Con-Agra, BASF, Unisys and the like do it for the PR. They hope to influence decision-makers at other companies who make the decisions about suppliers and contractors. They also hope to influence regulators with their good works. (ADM is a longtime underwriter of Newshour on PBS.)
Back in the early days of TV, companies like the phone company (there was only one back then) would be the exclusive sponsor for symphonies, operas, etc. Then the networks decided they didn’t want to run presitgious, but low-rated programs. So companies like Mobil went over to PBS and sponsored stuff like Masterpiece Theater. Then PBS turned around and started running their own commercials.
But the idea is still the same. Get your name mentioned in a prestigious program (the Sunday morning talk shows, Nightline and a couple of others are about the only ones left) and maybe the important people who watch those shows will be predisposed to think of you as a good guy.
As for milk, that’s easy. It’s true that if you drink milk, you drink milk. But you also drink Pepsi, Gatorade, Starbucks, Evian and maybe even Kool-Aid. The milk industry’s goal is more milk and less Pepsi.
I used to wonder why BC Hydro (our power utility) bought full page ads in the papers, payed for television ads, etc. They have a monopoly. Nobody buys their product on the strength of advertising.
Then I saw a CP story that the national papers were running under the headline “Hydro lines linked to brain cancer, leukemia.”
A shorter version of the story ran in the Vancouver Sun and The Province under the headline “Hydro lines not linked to most cancers.”
Milk sales have been dropping for years. The purpose of the commercials is to keep the people who still are drinking milk from stopping. They’d be happy to draw in some newcomers who don’t drink it because of the scare stories or soda drinkers looking for something healthier, but just ending the erosion would make them very happy.
Fifteen years ago, I worked for an ad agency. One of our clients was Georgia-Pacific. We didn’t do Brawny paper towels or Dixie cups or any of their other brands, however. The only part of the business we had was GP’s corporate image advertising – the kind of stuff you’re talking about. Typically, this was print advertising in business and investing magazines and certain newspapers. The point was, as has been suggested, to reach (1) shareholders and potential shareholders, and (2) decision-makers at potential business partners and customers. It is very close to PR (and indeed some of it may be created by PR firms) – the main distinction is that image advertising uses paid media.
Sometimes it’s an attempt to correct a damaged image. When I think of Dow Chemical, I think of napalm. They would rather have people think of puppies and cute children.
I find the advertising of gasoline pretty weird…I mean the stuff (given the same octane rating) is pretty much the same. In fact, if you are an independent gas dealer, you buy from whoever has the stuff in surplus…one day Mobil, the next Texaco. I once managed the gas dock at a local Marina…we officially sold MOBIL. However, every day we would get shipments from the local distributor…most of the time we bought Texaco, Sheell, and Mobil, occasionally CITGO.
Why people think brands of gasoline matter is beyond me.
Maybe I’m being silly, but I try to avoid gasoline that’s 10% alcohol (well, any percent alcohol). And there’s a brand of Gasoline – Sunoco – that’s always got alchol in it. Hell, if you’re going to sell me something inferior, at least make it 10% cheaper.
I’ve had “bad gas” (not the intestinal kind, well, yeah, but I don’t mean that) before, and it’s usually those little independants who buy their gas from who-knows-where-spot-market.
Now when you talk about the Marathons/Shells/BP’s/et al, then yeah, I see no reason for discrimination.
Archer Daniels Midland and a couple of the other big agri-conglomerates advertises almost exclusively on the Sunday morning news shows. These shows, while not hugely rated, are very highly watched by politicians, regulators, business people, etc. These people are very influential in promoting legislation that ADM wants and needs to have passed (gasohol subsidies, trade agreements, etc, etc.) Thus it represents a very targeted market.
Hmmm. Obviously Shell’s new advertising campaign for the “V-Power” gasoline product has not had an effect on you. http://www.localshell.com/Content.aspx?ArticleID=29
They claim 5X the detergent additives required by law are included in their “V-Power” product. I can’t prove that MATTERS, mind you, but it is a difference.
