You may not recognize the name of this chemical company, but if you watch TV, you’ll recognize this:
“We don’t make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy better.”
Dave Barry had a column a while back where he asked the same question I have - If you don’t make the products I buy, why are you spending millions of dollars to tell me about it!?
I suppose they’re really advertising to companies who make products (that could be made better), but the sheer volume of commercials they aired and the massive amounts of cash spent on advertising reminds me of the companies with high-end IT products and services (IBM, EDS, Cisco) that bought time during the Super Bowl. Yeah, the tens of millions of blue-collar workers tuned in will jump to the phone to learn more about your new Internet Routing Servers!
But seriously, when you have a very, very small target audience - a few thousand IT directors or research managers - wouldn’t it make more sense to just send out salesmen to each one of them to show off your product, rather than spend millions to advertise in a medium where 99.9% of the audience has absolutely no use for what you’re selling?
Perhaps I put too much faith in corporate executives, but I’d like to think that they don’t make their purchasing decisions based off which vendor had a commercial with a talking cat.
Maybe they’re just trying to get people to buy their stocks, although I’d rather invest in a company that had better things to do with its money…
Incidentally, I went to BASF’s website to try and find an answer, but only walked away with a reinforcement to my belief that Intellectual Property laws are the stupidest things on earth. Proof?
I believe they’re also marketing to investors. As more people try to manage their own portfolios, these companies like BASF and ADM try to get the word out about how great they are even though you’ve never heard of them and wouldn’t/couldn’t buy their product directly.
There are other examples, too. Anybody ever buy something directly from Archer Daniels Midland? Plus, anybody in the market for multi-million/billion dollar defense systems from Lockheed Martin, et al? And don’t get me started with those association commercials (cheese, milk, pork, etc.). Seriously, what effect does this have on retail sales? If you ask me, I’d say that these companies and associations have humongous advertising budgets and they have to spend them or they won’t get them next budget year. Sure, layoff half your workforce or move it to some sweatshop overseas, but don’t touch that advertising budget!:mad:
On the defense contractor adverts, I would venture that they probably know that the Pentagon budget czar (or whomever) watches “CBS Sunday Morning”, so that’s where they advertise. Sure it’s an audience of one, but that’s the one who could decide to throw a few billion your way…I reckon that the potential Return on Advertising Investment (or whatever the suits call it) would be pretty dang high…
Micco has it right. It’s for the investors. Although, if you were to buy the types of products that ADM or BASF make, you’d surely already know about them, there is a greater market out there in the investment world. It’s called Brand Awareness, and does not only apply to consumer goods.
The same would be said for the defense contractors, and others.
As far as the pork/beef/dairy boards, it’s all part of getting you to see alternatives to what you are already doing. e.g. “The New Pork”, “Eggs are healthy again” and other campaigns attempt to show you uses for these products that you may be tempted to try.
The beef/pork/etc. boards also probably do this b/c some farmers, i would imagine, pay to belong to the boards. And, they figure that they are thus helping their constituent members indirectly.
I once had some casette tapes that said BASF on them, back in the '80s I think it was, but that might just be an area they got out of after a while.
Well, advertising pork makes a certain amount of sense - “The Other White Meat” is definately (at least around here) a second-choice meat - we eat a lot of ham and bacon, but we don’t eat pork chops or pork loin very often. So I can see how ads can help the nation’s pig farmers. “What shall I cook for dinner? Oh, you know, we haven’t had pork in a while.”
And many of those “association” commercials do focus on the benefits of their product - remember the old Milk commercials, it does a body good? Although it seems they’ve gotten away from touting health benefits (or possibly I just don’t see Saturday morning programming anymore). And touting things like eggs is a direct response to the “Eggs aren’t healthy!” word.
But, say, cotton? Especially since a cotton commercial isn’t “Cotton underwear gives you fewer yeast infections!”, it’s “Mom, am I ever going to pass the driving test?” Or cheese, which isn’t really an alternative to anything. These are the commercials I don’t really get.
Certainly you’re not suggesting that these are the only people who watch the Super Bowl…are you?
To be sure, at around one billion TV sets tuned in worldwide, there will be a large number of blue collar workers–as there would be in any sample size that large. But unless I’m mistaken, there is a highly significant number of professionals, executives, investors and others who like football and who enjoy the spectacle that is the Super Bowl. How can you tell?
Companies buy ads to market to them at over $2 million for 30 seconds.
I remember seeing BASF-brand blank video and audio tapes in Germany (it’s a German company) not too long ago, and I guess also blank CDs. But the company explicitly states on its website:
I agree with those who say it’s for the investors. You don’t have to buy BASF products to buy BASF shares. And of course public goodwill is something than can be worth a lot, even if you’re not selling directly to the audience of the commercial.
I’m familiar with the commercials, but wtf does BASF even stand for? I can’t even find it on their website (linked in above post). . .I’m deliriously tired though so sorry if I’ve missed it somewhere here.
There’s no need to be so offended, **hyjyljyj **. My point is that these companies are strangely spending millions to advertise in a place where the vast, VAST majority of the viewers will have absolutely no interest in buying their products.
There’s a reason you don’t see ads for tampons during Monday Night Football, even though, yes, many women do watch it.
Apropos of nothing: This exact question was the very first thing I asked on the SDMB, way back when it was still on AOL. I got the “it’s for the investors” response then, too.
Possibily for tax breaks involved in advertising. Possibly to boost company morale. Possibly to boost the ego of the BASF executive. Possibly to score SuperBowl tickets. Possibly to replace the old motto of “BASF: We make the Nazis better.” Possibly because BASF does market some products directly – tapes, film, storage media, maybe batteries. Possibly because there is benefit in branding non-direct sales (just ask Intel).
I agree that this is all PR. One of the rotating signboards behind home plate at Dodger Stadium is an ad for Boeing. When I see it, I’m not motivated to go out and buy a jet.
Cargill, Inc. has been advertising lately, and they have essentially no consumer products. But Cargill is privately owned. Therefore I think Cargill and other publicly traded companies think they are getting something out of the advertising.
The only other reason I can think of is to soften people up, for example, before they are thrown into a jury to decide how liable BASF is for injuries to a sweet old lady who spilled McDonalds coffee on herself made from a coffee pot made in part from BASF plastics.
IMO people tend to not have sympathy for corporations or organizations they are not familiar with, especially “chemical” companies. The commercials may be a familiarization tool so that people have some link to the company before being put on a jury.