It takes a lot for me to like any of today's advertising (except for the Weezer Snuggie, of course); however, the following commercial, that I saw on TV yesterday, is an exception. While its origin may have been as a spoof, its point is extremely well taken. And it's funny. Gotta love that!
At the rate I'm going, I'll need a body tarp soon. Alas, no Crunch gym near me.
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Calling All Morons
I get annoyed every time I hear the line "If she can do it, anyone can do it!" at the end of the Everest commercials. I'm trying to figure out who is insulted more: the presumed idiot that somehow made it through their illustrious program or the program itself.
I can just picture their crack marketing team in an intense (a.k.a. completely fictitious) meeting with the admissions department.
"Our numbers are down year-over-year and we need to increase enrollment significantly. Can you help us put together a winning ad campaign that will drive results?"
"Sure, just give us a demographic/psychographic profile of the typical student and we'll do the rest."
"That's easy. Target anyone who doesn't think she has a rat's chance in hell of success and convince her that our program will radically improve her life and land her the high-paying dream job as a Certified Medical Assistant."
"How?"
"By coupling her with a mentor who cares."
"No, I mean in what alternate universe does Medical Assisting pay well?"
"Oh, gotcha. Yeah, picture a teen mother on welfare. Does that help?"
"But won't it cost these kids significantly more than a two-year degree at a local community college?"
"We're trying to get these morons to enroll; not educate them on what constitutes a wise investment."
"Done and done."
(Note: As my mom rightfully pointed out, I'm sure Everest has really helped people to better their lives. I just think that line in their advertising is horribly insulting.)
I can just picture their crack marketing team in an intense (a.k.a. completely fictitious) meeting with the admissions department.
"Our numbers are down year-over-year and we need to increase enrollment significantly. Can you help us put together a winning ad campaign that will drive results?"
"Sure, just give us a demographic/psychographic profile of the typical student and we'll do the rest."
"That's easy. Target anyone who doesn't think she has a rat's chance in hell of success and convince her that our program will radically improve her life and land her the high-paying dream job as a Certified Medical Assistant."
"How?"
"By coupling her with a mentor who cares."
"No, I mean in what alternate universe does Medical Assisting pay well?"
"Oh, gotcha. Yeah, picture a teen mother on welfare. Does that help?"
"But won't it cost these kids significantly more than a two-year degree at a local community college?"
"We're trying to get these morons to enroll; not educate them on what constitutes a wise investment."
"Done and done."
(Note: As my mom rightfully pointed out, I'm sure Everest has really helped people to better their lives. I just think that line in their advertising is horribly insulting.)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Chase What Matters
For the past two years (or somewhere in that neighborhood), Chase has employed the tag line "Chase What Matters" which always reminded me a little of the old American Express "Do More" campaign in that it felt aspirational. While it's a clever use of Chase as a verb, it's otherwise not quite as compelling to me. (Mind you, as an ex-Amex girl, I may be biased.) If I understand correctly, if I bank with Chase, I will have the right resources behind me to follow my dreams. Sounds good, right?
With that said, there is a Chase commercial on the air lately that drives me absolutely batty. I want to smack the smug ass ad agency executive who developed it. It features a guy who is trying to talk his wife/girlfriend into using their Chase points for a vacation for two. He's dreaming of walking along the French Quarter while a jazz band serenades them in the background, boating along a palm tree-laden coastline and dining in an elegant restaurant overlooking a panoramic cityscape. But nope: he cannot chase his dreams because his wife already blew through all the points on one, I repeat, one dress. (And I wonder: where the heck is she planning to wear that thing? Not to the Cub Scout camp out . . . )
In this case, the husband should chase what matters: divorce. Imagine the points he can accrue by charging all his attorney's fees to his Sapphire card. Imagine the trips he could take then!
I think Budweiser should follow up with this same man and film the empty 12 packs that begin littering his coffee table when he finally allows himself to get that stupid, I've-been-duped grin off his face and actually digest the fact that his wife would make such a selfish purchase without consulting him.
Enjoy the in-house "staycation" with your beautifully dressed wife, sir. And don't forget to thank Chase!
With that said, there is a Chase commercial on the air lately that drives me absolutely batty. I want to smack the smug ass ad agency executive who developed it. It features a guy who is trying to talk his wife/girlfriend into using their Chase points for a vacation for two. He's dreaming of walking along the French Quarter while a jazz band serenades them in the background, boating along a palm tree-laden coastline and dining in an elegant restaurant overlooking a panoramic cityscape. But nope: he cannot chase his dreams because his wife already blew through all the points on one, I repeat, one dress. (And I wonder: where the heck is she planning to wear that thing? Not to the Cub Scout camp out . . . )
In this case, the husband should chase what matters: divorce. Imagine the points he can accrue by charging all his attorney's fees to his Sapphire card. Imagine the trips he could take then!
I think Budweiser should follow up with this same man and film the empty 12 packs that begin littering his coffee table when he finally allows himself to get that stupid, I've-been-duped grin off his face and actually digest the fact that his wife would make such a selfish purchase without consulting him.
Enjoy the in-house "staycation" with your beautifully dressed wife, sir. And don't forget to thank Chase!
Friday, July 24, 2009
Men are from Mars
When I worked in a couple of ad agencies many moons ago, I used to marvel at the hubris (read: egos) of some of the creative talent and the way in which they treated the peons who were there presumably to serve and honor them. Yes, they were smart and oftentimes very funny. Sure many of their ideas were great. But what's great on paper and not at all what the client wants is not great. Period.
Give and take should be mandatory because ideas can always be improved upon. Bi-lateral education and communication should be welcome because sometimes the client needs to be swayed away from an irrational course of action and vice versa. Sounds simplistic yet, in my experience, those workplace behaviors were rarely adopted in such environments.
For a long time, I thought it would be helpful to offer a day-long workshop for ad agencies (entitled something along the lines of "Art Directors are Creative Gods; Account Executives are Idiots") during which an industrial psychologist would walk teams through different vantage points -- both internal and external -- and the delicate art of respectful collaboration. It could be rolled out to agencies coast-to-coast because I don't think this age-old issue was confined merely to the environments in which I worked. The market could be pretty huge.
With that said, after overhearing a tech guy patronizing an obvious simpleton over the phone earlier today as I grabbed a cup of coffee, I now believe the market for this workshop may be even larger. I'm thinking the entire world could use a workshop called "I'm in IT; you (whoever you are) are a moron."
Maybe a line of t-shirts would work.
Give and take should be mandatory because ideas can always be improved upon. Bi-lateral education and communication should be welcome because sometimes the client needs to be swayed away from an irrational course of action and vice versa. Sounds simplistic yet, in my experience, those workplace behaviors were rarely adopted in such environments.
For a long time, I thought it would be helpful to offer a day-long workshop for ad agencies (entitled something along the lines of "Art Directors are Creative Gods; Account Executives are Idiots") during which an industrial psychologist would walk teams through different vantage points -- both internal and external -- and the delicate art of respectful collaboration. It could be rolled out to agencies coast-to-coast because I don't think this age-old issue was confined merely to the environments in which I worked. The market could be pretty huge.
With that said, after overhearing a tech guy patronizing an obvious simpleton over the phone earlier today as I grabbed a cup of coffee, I now believe the market for this workshop may be even larger. I'm thinking the entire world could use a workshop called "I'm in IT; you (whoever you are) are a moron."
Maybe a line of t-shirts would work.
Monday, April 13, 2009
SpotOn
Following is a confluence of random thoughts about the state of the advertising industry:
This idea first came to me when the kids were watching some cable program that showcased buildings blowing up, accidents on the race car circuit, etc. When they cut to commercial, it was for some nondescript product with a commonplace ad. Instead of "you had me at hello," it was "you lost me at the break." I thought, wouldn't it be great if the ad somehow kept the action going? Sure, not too many brands want to be associated with a fiery explosion but some might -- especially if the ad itself is clever enough.
As my girlfriend Kris' husband countered, "Isn't that what advertising agencies are supposed to be doing?" Why yes, yes it is. But I think the current model is tired and worn out. The current model understandably focuses on brand consistency across all forms of media vs. tailoring the viewing experience to the audience at hand. And too many brands are risk-adverse. If you're Procter & Gamble and you've invested millions in your collective brands, you're going to stick with advertising that fits the model. I get it.
However, some brands can and should take a chance. New entrants in the market. Old products that need a facelift. Commoditized products that need differentiation. The possibilities are endless.
While I don't think we could "own" the first spot during American Idol each week (may be a tad cost-prohibitive!), perhaps we could negotiate the first spot on Flight of the Conchords, Krod Mandoon or Late Night with Jimmy Fallon while we make a name for ourselves. Start small . . .
If the team at SNL can produce a new ad weekly, in addition to writing, rehearsing and performing a multitude of skits, I believe we can accomplish a lot with a small team of solid, local writers coupled with a talented director and production crew. With low overhead (i.e., we could operate out of a barn for all I care) and minimal upstate NY salary requirements when compared to the industry norm on Madison Avenue, we could charge our clients very little on a per-ad basis until we're well known and respected. And I guarantee that we can initially secure local "actors" who would jump at the chance of being in a national ad: for free. The bulk of our clients' expenditure would likely cover the network costs.
For companies that spend enormous sums for a lifeless 30 second spot, this new model should be a dream come true for select products.
And the beautiful side of this coin, from a business development position, is that since we would a) "own" the time slot, b) boast a captive audience over time and c) become known for our work, longer term, clients should come to us. To me, that's a revenue model that works!
It's a win: win situation. And it would be one whole heck of a lot of fun.
- I hear more people than ever before claiming to watch the Superbowl for the commercials
- People talk about the good ads after the Superbowl just as much as they discuss the game
- The first ad break during SNL features a spoof -- and most people, I would venture to guess given my lack of data, stick around to watch it
- Every other ad on TV, for the most part, is skipped thanks to TiVo/DVR
- Interesting ads are shared beyond TV via YouTube and email (case in point: the Heineken walk-in closet commercial or T-Mobile's dancers in a London train station)
This idea first came to me when the kids were watching some cable program that showcased buildings blowing up, accidents on the race car circuit, etc. When they cut to commercial, it was for some nondescript product with a commonplace ad. Instead of "you had me at hello," it was "you lost me at the break." I thought, wouldn't it be great if the ad somehow kept the action going? Sure, not too many brands want to be associated with a fiery explosion but some might -- especially if the ad itself is clever enough.
As my girlfriend Kris' husband countered, "Isn't that what advertising agencies are supposed to be doing?" Why yes, yes it is. But I think the current model is tired and worn out. The current model understandably focuses on brand consistency across all forms of media vs. tailoring the viewing experience to the audience at hand. And too many brands are risk-adverse. If you're Procter & Gamble and you've invested millions in your collective brands, you're going to stick with advertising that fits the model. I get it.
However, some brands can and should take a chance. New entrants in the market. Old products that need a facelift. Commoditized products that need differentiation. The possibilities are endless.
While I don't think we could "own" the first spot during American Idol each week (may be a tad cost-prohibitive!), perhaps we could negotiate the first spot on Flight of the Conchords, Krod Mandoon or Late Night with Jimmy Fallon while we make a name for ourselves. Start small . . .
If the team at SNL can produce a new ad weekly, in addition to writing, rehearsing and performing a multitude of skits, I believe we can accomplish a lot with a small team of solid, local writers coupled with a talented director and production crew. With low overhead (i.e., we could operate out of a barn for all I care) and minimal upstate NY salary requirements when compared to the industry norm on Madison Avenue, we could charge our clients very little on a per-ad basis until we're well known and respected. And I guarantee that we can initially secure local "actors" who would jump at the chance of being in a national ad: for free. The bulk of our clients' expenditure would likely cover the network costs.
For companies that spend enormous sums for a lifeless 30 second spot, this new model should be a dream come true for select products.
And the beautiful side of this coin, from a business development position, is that since we would a) "own" the time slot, b) boast a captive audience over time and c) become known for our work, longer term, clients should come to us. To me, that's a revenue model that works!
It's a win: win situation. And it would be one whole heck of a lot of fun.
Friday, September 5, 2008
All Hail the Return of the Pant
Oh thank God! I can finally wear pants again. I was getting so darned sick of my pinafores.
Seriously, is it only in middle America where pants never went out of style or is someone in the Victoria's Secret advertising department smoking crack? Way to be in touch with your audience.
And is that silky blouse with puffy sleeves really the "most-wanted look inspired by the fall fashion shows"? If so, I'm glad to be living in the land of the lost. That outfit doesn't even look compelling on her and she's presumably a supermodel.
Somehow, I'd much rather be in this little number from J. Crew.
Seriously, is it only in middle America where pants never went out of style or is someone in the Victoria's Secret advertising department smoking crack? Way to be in touch with your audience.
And is that silky blouse with puffy sleeves really the "most-wanted look inspired by the fall fashion shows"? If so, I'm glad to be living in the land of the lost. That outfit doesn't even look compelling on her and she's presumably a supermodel.
Somehow, I'd much rather be in this little number from J. Crew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)