This one just makes me think of a bunch of monkeys smashing keyboards in a boardroom. Flonase has an advert for their product (Flonase) that is based upon the notion (medical facts irrelevant here) that preventing production of six allergen-reactive chemicals is better than the standard found in most allergy relief medication, just antihistamines. This may be true, and I think making that point would be important, but focusing the entire commercial on the slogan "Six is greater than one... this changes everything!" makes it comical, at best.
We know, six is greater than one; And no... this changes absolutely nothing. In fact, it maintains pretty much all mathematical formulas that aren't wrong in the first place. The expression "6>1" may come as a surprise to a toddler, or a small animal, but they can't purchase nasal spray. Even if they could, having math on a package (I'm assuming it's on the box, but I don't know) or as the primary point of an advert would likely turn away most children; and many small animals wouldn't be able, or willing, to use the product for it's intended purpose.
I hope that this isn't surprising to anyone, as that would make me very disappointed in the level of education here. I also hope that, although it appears this way in many cases, large companies and advertising firms aren't tossing around millions of dollars thinking that they have produced something magnificent for the world of marketing when it (the advert) does nothing more than proclaim an expression known by almost everyone who can count as high as six with a "Eureka!"-type proclamation.
Fire the whole team; this is absurd. If anyone thinks that using such simplistic statements to pander to idiots is any better than manipulating people's emotions in order to buy their mediocre product with big, colorful prints and a sub-human, holier-than-thou, celebrity endorsing the same, then you are certainly a jackass. [edit: you're probably a jackass]
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
For all the 'Nevers' in Life (Statefarm)
So here's an advertisement that really makes me wonder what capacity marketing teams have for logic. You've likely seen the advert that goes something like this:
Man, poolside, to friends: [Checks out women by the pool] "I'm never getting married".
[Shows him getting married]
Couple, on plane: "We're never having kids".
[Shows wife in labor]
Couple, at dinner table in downtown apartment: (To child) "You're never moving to the suburbs".
[They move to suburbs]
Husband, to wife: [Watches minivan drive by] "We're never getting one of those".
[They get one]
Husband, to wife: "[No more kids...]".
Wife: "I'm Pregnant".
Then, after all these 'never' scenarios, the family is seen on the couch, the husband watching TV; The wife and kids are asleep in his arms. He looks at his family and says:
"I'm never letting go."
Now obviously, this was intended to be an emotional, sentimental, statement; It was intended to mean exactly what was said (hopefully). However, as all previous examples show, every time he says something will never happen, that something does indeed happen. Surely, in life, over a long period of time, people say 'never' but then that 'never' happens, and as is demonstrated in this advert, it's typically naivety giving way to reality in a beautiful, happy, way, even if retrospectively. Unfortunately, when you condense all of these events so closely (as in a time-lapsed advert) it simply gives the appearance of opposition to the man's desires. Therefore, when he says "I'm never letting go." it implies that, given all previous examples, he truly means, expects, or anticipates the opposite.
In summation, he says "This'll never happen" and then it happens. He says "I'm never letting go" and no scene follows, but it's implied that he would, in fact, 'let go'. The pattern is pretty clear, and is the entire point of the advert. Excuse the dark scenario but StateFarm would certainly 'be there' if the husband committed suicide in order to complete the "'never', then happens" cycle. I'm sure some people will see the positive message the commercial conveys along with the different severity of the use of the word "never", but it doesn't take much reading into to see how macabre the logic used in the advert can be interpreted to be.
Man, poolside, to friends: [Checks out women by the pool] "I'm never getting married".
[Shows him getting married]
Couple, on plane: "We're never having kids".
[Shows wife in labor]
Couple, at dinner table in downtown apartment: (To child) "You're never moving to the suburbs".
[They move to suburbs]
Husband, to wife: [Watches minivan drive by] "We're never getting one of those".
[They get one]
Husband, to wife: "[No more kids...]".
Wife: "I'm Pregnant".
Then, after all these 'never' scenarios, the family is seen on the couch, the husband watching TV; The wife and kids are asleep in his arms. He looks at his family and says:
"I'm never letting go."
Now obviously, this was intended to be an emotional, sentimental, statement; It was intended to mean exactly what was said (hopefully). However, as all previous examples show, every time he says something will never happen, that something does indeed happen. Surely, in life, over a long period of time, people say 'never' but then that 'never' happens, and as is demonstrated in this advert, it's typically naivety giving way to reality in a beautiful, happy, way, even if retrospectively. Unfortunately, when you condense all of these events so closely (as in a time-lapsed advert) it simply gives the appearance of opposition to the man's desires. Therefore, when he says "I'm never letting go." it implies that, given all previous examples, he truly means, expects, or anticipates the opposite.
In summation, he says "This'll never happen" and then it happens. He says "I'm never letting go" and no scene follows, but it's implied that he would, in fact, 'let go'. The pattern is pretty clear, and is the entire point of the advert. Excuse the dark scenario but StateFarm would certainly 'be there' if the husband committed suicide in order to complete the "'never', then happens" cycle. I'm sure some people will see the positive message the commercial conveys along with the different severity of the use of the word "never", but it doesn't take much reading into to see how macabre the logic used in the advert can be interpreted to be.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Subaru... Safety-Oriented Advertisement
So there's an advert for Subaru, it goes something like:
*A car accident*
"They lived" a few times as the totaled vehicle goes through the steps to its final demise.
"We lived... thanks to our Subaru." As the surviving family gets into their new Subaru.
Now, I understand the promotion of safety here. I appreciate the importance of safety in a vehicle and all that jazz, but... As far as this advert goes, there's an interesting point to be made. While it's great that this totally real family totally survived their totally real accident, it should be pointed out that while they may have survived simply because they were in a Subaru, if they had not been in said Subaru, they would never have been in the accident that almost killed them, totaled their Subaru, and likely spiked their insurance premium (unless of course they have Accident Forgiveness (would have been a good opportunity to plug that)).
It could even be said that if they had been in just about any car other than that particular Subaru, they would have completely avoided the wreck:
If they had a larger vehicle: They could have packed things in and gotten strapped in sooner, left just seconds earlier, and avoided the wreck.
If they had a smaller vehicle: They may have struggled to get everyone in and comfortable, left seconds/minutes later, and avoided the wreck.
If they had a faster vehicle: Maybe Dad feels like impressing the pedestrians as he speeds past those foot jockeys, blaring Foreigner, Journey, Boston, Poison, etc. feeling like the coolest 40-something young man. Had that been the case, they would have passed the point of the wreck before it would have happened (then possibly caused one down the road as Dad starts swaying his body, and the car, while listening to Sweet Child of Mine).
Also, perhaps the vehicle that caused the wreck was either a Subaru or was pissed off because of some poor driver in a Subaru.
A little re-wording of the statements in the advert, or removal of some statements entirely, could have avoided such speculation and still had just as much, if not more, emphasis on safety.
If the same commercial had ended with the family on bicycles, it would have had the same message of safety with a completely different emphasis. This particular advert would work as well for anti-vehicle folks as it does for Subaru to promote their safe vehicles. The words used are important, and the folks at Subaru's marketing department went too far to be too pretentious. They effectively have made a "vehicles are unsafe, you'll probably wreck. So we've made a vehicle that is prepared for the inevitable... enjoy your drive BAHAHAHAHAHA..." commercial. Maybe not quite that dramatic, but there is a certain fear factor they've used in this advert that they overcompensated for with self-promotion and brand recognition.
It's not a bad commercial, it just went a teeny bit too far and opened a jar of counter-point speculation.
It should have just ended with "We survived." as Dad smiles and the family enters their new Subaru, followed by the animated screens in the advert already.
*A car accident*
"They lived" a few times as the totaled vehicle goes through the steps to its final demise.
"We lived... thanks to our Subaru." As the surviving family gets into their new Subaru.
Now, I understand the promotion of safety here. I appreciate the importance of safety in a vehicle and all that jazz, but... As far as this advert goes, there's an interesting point to be made. While it's great that this totally real family totally survived their totally real accident, it should be pointed out that while they may have survived simply because they were in a Subaru, if they had not been in said Subaru, they would never have been in the accident that almost killed them, totaled their Subaru, and likely spiked their insurance premium (unless of course they have Accident Forgiveness (would have been a good opportunity to plug that)).
It could even be said that if they had been in just about any car other than that particular Subaru, they would have completely avoided the wreck:
If they had a larger vehicle: They could have packed things in and gotten strapped in sooner, left just seconds earlier, and avoided the wreck.
If they had a smaller vehicle: They may have struggled to get everyone in and comfortable, left seconds/minutes later, and avoided the wreck.
If they had a faster vehicle: Maybe Dad feels like impressing the pedestrians as he speeds past those foot jockeys, blaring Foreigner, Journey, Boston, Poison, etc. feeling like the coolest 40-something young man. Had that been the case, they would have passed the point of the wreck before it would have happened (then possibly caused one down the road as Dad starts swaying his body, and the car, while listening to Sweet Child of Mine).
Also, perhaps the vehicle that caused the wreck was either a Subaru or was pissed off because of some poor driver in a Subaru.
A little re-wording of the statements in the advert, or removal of some statements entirely, could have avoided such speculation and still had just as much, if not more, emphasis on safety.
If the same commercial had ended with the family on bicycles, it would have had the same message of safety with a completely different emphasis. This particular advert would work as well for anti-vehicle folks as it does for Subaru to promote their safe vehicles. The words used are important, and the folks at Subaru's marketing department went too far to be too pretentious. They effectively have made a "vehicles are unsafe, you'll probably wreck. So we've made a vehicle that is prepared for the inevitable... enjoy your drive BAHAHAHAHAHA..." commercial. Maybe not quite that dramatic, but there is a certain fear factor they've used in this advert that they overcompensated for with self-promotion and brand recognition.
It's not a bad commercial, it just went a teeny bit too far and opened a jar of counter-point speculation.
It should have just ended with "We survived." as Dad smiles and the family enters their new Subaru, followed by the animated screens in the advert already.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Has nobody at DQ noticed this?
Dairy Queen has a special deal type thing, where you get some food and some other stuff, probably a drink or whatevs. This deal is being marketed at DQ storefronts, in the form of banners and signs, and in the media (TV, radio, etc.). The deal/slogan is "Five Buck Lunch"... nothing wrong with that, right? Right. BUT...!!1...1!111!! Here's the part that irritates the hell out of me: It's spelled:
"$5 Buck Lunch"
At first glance it seems ok, right? sure... but it should actually be read:
"Five Dollar Buck Lunch"
lolwut?
See? Problem. Redundant. Nonsense. Baaaad. For shame, DQ marketing people, for shame :(
So, I can't just point out the problem and not offer a solution, right? meh... not really, I could leave it at that, as I'm sure they will continue their slaughtering of grammar (I know, it's not that bad) anyway, but!.. here's some options (excluding leaving it the way it is):
1. Make it worse... humorous, even:
"$5 USD Buck Lunch"
read: "Five Dollars, United States Dollar, Buck Lunch"
It's not even close to being funny, so don't do that, DQ.
2. Spell it out: "Five (or 5 (without the "$")) Buck Lunch" ...Solved.
3. Have Sacha Baron Cohen say it as "Five Dollar Buck Lunch" while dressed as Borat. Put Borat's picture on all of your signs, and give away Borat, Bruno, and Dictator bootleg VHS copies to anyone who gets a "$5 Buck Lunch" that appears to be over 18. (Please don't do that xD)
4. Discontinue it... no need to reprint corrected banners and signs, just pull the ads and try something new
OR!
5. Change it... make it a "Four Buck Lunch" or "Six Buck Lunch"! Make slight modifications to the radio ads, append or "interrupt" the tv spots and have someone "make it an even BETTER deal!" and have all the stores spray paint over the old signs and banners' "$5" with an "X" and put a 4, 5, 6, or whatever you'd like, just remember to drop the "$" :P
I'm sure Dairy Queen will see this very soon and make a carefully planned decision (jk, I know they probably don't care), I just hope if they do notice their error that they spend a little more time on the next campaign than they did this time :Þ
I should also note that I LOVE DQ :) (#2 Combo, Extra Flame Sauce on the burger and Flame Sauce on the side (for my fries).) Very bad for my body, but so very good otherwise. I figured it's only fair that I compliment the franchise after insulting their marketing team :)
"$5 Buck Lunch"
At first glance it seems ok, right? sure... but it should actually be read:
"Five Dollar Buck Lunch"
lolwut?
See? Problem. Redundant. Nonsense. Baaaad. For shame, DQ marketing people, for shame :(
So, I can't just point out the problem and not offer a solution, right? meh... not really, I could leave it at that, as I'm sure they will continue their slaughtering of grammar (I know, it's not that bad) anyway, but!.. here's some options (excluding leaving it the way it is):
1. Make it worse... humorous, even:
"$5 USD Buck Lunch"
read: "Five Dollars, United States Dollar, Buck Lunch"
It's not even close to being funny, so don't do that, DQ.
2. Spell it out: "Five (or 5 (without the "$")) Buck Lunch" ...Solved.
3. Have Sacha Baron Cohen say it as "Five Dollar Buck Lunch" while dressed as Borat. Put Borat's picture on all of your signs, and give away Borat, Bruno, and Dictator bootleg VHS copies to anyone who gets a "$5 Buck Lunch" that appears to be over 18. (Please don't do that xD)
4. Discontinue it... no need to reprint corrected banners and signs, just pull the ads and try something new
OR!
5. Change it... make it a "Four Buck Lunch" or "Six Buck Lunch"! Make slight modifications to the radio ads, append or "interrupt" the tv spots and have someone "make it an even BETTER deal!" and have all the stores spray paint over the old signs and banners' "$5" with an "X" and put a 4, 5, 6, or whatever you'd like, just remember to drop the "$" :P
I'm sure Dairy Queen will see this very soon and make a carefully planned decision (jk, I know they probably don't care), I just hope if they do notice their error that they spend a little more time on the next campaign than they did this time :Þ
I should also note that I LOVE DQ :) (#2 Combo, Extra Flame Sauce on the burger and Flame Sauce on the side (for my fries).) Very bad for my body, but so very good otherwise. I figured it's only fair that I compliment the franchise after insulting their marketing team :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)