Monday, April 19, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Do Geico Commercial Try too Hard to be Funny?
Blogger is still acting up and refusing to show my banner or blog titles for some reason unbeknownst to me, but I'll get it sorted out eventually.
If you can see the title for this post, it's clearly a rhetorical question. Just like Geico has decided would be funny to use for their TV spots. For example, the commercial asking, "Do the Walton's take too long to say goodnight?"
The problem with a commercial like this, aside from it being a sad attempt to be funny that pushes viewers away, is that it references a television show that ended 30 years ago. Now clearly it's been shown since in syndication, but still...it's a reference point that not many people care about. What if someone doesn't like the show? What if someone, like me, has never seen it, nor has any intention or desire to ever see it? You're banking on the popularity of an incredibly outdated show. They may be aiming to an older demographic, but I don't see how a reference to an ancient family drama has any effect over whether or not they'd want Geico's insurance. Clearly comedy isn't your thing, Geico, how about you stick to telling customers about your insurance being cheaper...at least that way you don't ruin your respectability with embarrassingly bad commercials.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
If you can see the title for this post, it's clearly a rhetorical question. Just like Geico has decided would be funny to use for their TV spots. For example, the commercial asking, "Do the Walton's take too long to say goodnight?"
The problem with a commercial like this, aside from it being a sad attempt to be funny that pushes viewers away, is that it references a television show that ended 30 years ago. Now clearly it's been shown since in syndication, but still...it's a reference point that not many people care about. What if someone doesn't like the show? What if someone, like me, has never seen it, nor has any intention or desire to ever see it? You're banking on the popularity of an incredibly outdated show. They may be aiming to an older demographic, but I don't see how a reference to an ancient family drama has any effect over whether or not they'd want Geico's insurance. Clearly comedy isn't your thing, Geico, how about you stick to telling customers about your insurance being cheaper...at least that way you don't ruin your respectability with embarrassingly bad commercials.
-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor
Monday, April 5, 2010
iAd
When I decided to write about Apple introducing a new advertising platform for mobile devices, I came up with the witty title of iAd to play off their newly released gizmo the iPad, but apparently that's actually what they're going to call their new service anyway. How creative of them...
This will allow Apple (and developers) to make money off advertisements appearing in various Apps. This benefits the owners of iPhones because it means that more content will be free, because developers will be able to make money off advertisements rather than charging a fee to download the App. This benefits the developers because more people are apt to download something for free rather than something they have to pay even a meager sum for. And it benefits Apple because according to the article linked above, it could mean $400 million a year in revenue.
So it's all a win-win-win, right?
Well, not so fast. What about the advertisers? How will this benefit them?
It allows them to reach individuals easily on their cell-phones. It also allows them to use Apple's customer data to create effective mobile ads targeted at specific demographics.
But are people really going to take kindly to advertisements on their cell-phones? I've had a few Apps with prevalent ads, and they're just as easy to ignore as banner ads on websites. They're just another nuisance to be tolerated while opening an app for a brief moment. So it's great that Apple is finding another source of income for their developers. But the only way this will work is if the advertisements actually generate awareness and sales, something that isn't guaranteed.
This will allow Apple (and developers) to make money off advertisements appearing in various Apps. This benefits the owners of iPhones because it means that more content will be free, because developers will be able to make money off advertisements rather than charging a fee to download the App. This benefits the developers because more people are apt to download something for free rather than something they have to pay even a meager sum for. And it benefits Apple because according to the article linked above, it could mean $400 million a year in revenue.
So it's all a win-win-win, right?
Well, not so fast. What about the advertisers? How will this benefit them?
It allows them to reach individuals easily on their cell-phones. It also allows them to use Apple's customer data to create effective mobile ads targeted at specific demographics.
But are people really going to take kindly to advertisements on their cell-phones? I've had a few Apps with prevalent ads, and they're just as easy to ignore as banner ads on websites. They're just another nuisance to be tolerated while opening an app for a brief moment. So it's great that Apple is finding another source of income for their developers. But the only way this will work is if the advertisements actually generate awareness and sales, something that isn't guaranteed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
