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 You're banking on the popularity of an incredibly outdated show.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

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.

What to Expect with the Unexpected?

Commercials try a bunch of different tactics to make viewers laugh. Because one of the most effective ways to cut through the clutter is proper use of humor. Make a funny commercial, and people will talk about it for a good while. And if they're talking about your commercial it means they're at least aware of your product--a feat not so easy to achieve when you're exposed to anywhere from 150-3,000 advertisements a day (quite a wide range.)

Now, humor advertising can be risky, because many people have terrible senses of humor (as evidenced by Jay Leno's good ratings), and if someone doesn't get the joke, it's the waste of an advertisement. Or if it's the slightest bit offensive, overly-sensitive people could get turned off. Now to counter that, if it's a boring attempt at being funny, people with a good sense of humor could cringe (like I do every time Flo the irritating Progressive Insurance girl comes on the screen, or any Geico Caveman.)

But one of the greatest ways to produce humor is for the unexpected to happen. Not only does it grab the attention of anyone who was half-watching, but it also generates some laughs and spurs the viewer to watch the commercial again for anything they might have missed.

A perfect example of an excellent use of the unexpected for humor is this Old Spice commercial everyone loves so much. I've seen it plenty of times and it still hasn't gotten old. Then again, some people don't understand it at all--but I'd like to think these people aren't part of Old Spice's target demographic anyway. Nothing about it is funny in particular at first (except for the man's excellent delivery of the lines). It looks to be just a typical man talking about a shower gel, but then random unexpected stuff happens and it turns into hilarity.




Anytime a major celebrity invites an actor from a commercial onto their show, you know you made a good spot. Isaiah Mustafa, the actor from the commercial, was on Ellen DeGeneres' show explaining that the entire commercial was one long take that took over 80 tries to get right--giving me even more respect for the ad.

The moral of the story is that Old Spice took a chance on a commercial that some people might not understand, incorporating heavy use of the unexpected, and it has been a huge success. Does this mean that anytime something ridiculous happens in a commercial it will generate laughter? No. As with every advertisement, it must be well-made. But perhaps instead of focusing on corny jokes that are safe and forgettable, more advertisers should incorporate the unexpected. If done right, it makes for a far more effective spot.

Here's another excellent commercial that relies a bit on the surprise factor to create laughs. If you're a sports fan you'll get...if not, well, it's not targeted toward you anyway, so don't feel left out.




-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Coors Not Quite

The Coldest Tasting Beer...this was Coors Light's Marketing stance for a long time, I guess before they realized that being Cold has nothing to do with taste...it is a temperature. If I have a refrigerated Bud Light and a luke-warm Coors Light that's been sitting on the counter...both taste like crap, but the Bud Light feels colder on my tongue, regardless of Coors Light being "frost-brewed."

You know your product is in dire straights when its most marketable aspect is that it gets cold when refrigerated. That's like me starting a soup company and claiming I have the warmest soup cause it's cooked over a flame. "Flame-Boiled" if you will.

Oh, and about your whole "the label turns blue when it's cold" selling point, know how else someone knows when it's cold? By touching the bottle or can.

Now, Coors Light has changed their commercials to say it's "the most refreshing beer," which is far better than "coldest tasting," but you're still banking on an attribute that is controlled by refrigeration! Everyone knows your beer doesn't taste good. And I commend you for not trying to make that claim (as Miller Lite seems content to do now). But why don't you follow Budweiser's and Dos Equiis' lead and stick to commercials that make people laugh?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

For Whom the Bell Tolls...

Today, we'll be tackling Taco Bell's commercial for their new Pacific Shrimp Taco. But first, here's a list of things I'd do before eating shrimp from a Taco Bell.

1. Roll around naked o'er the mountains of a garbage dump.
2. Walk barefoot on a beach coated in medical waste.
3. Swim in the Ganges River.

Now that you know where I stand on their product. Let's talk about the commercial.



Obviously, I'm not the only one with reservations about buying the seafood at my local Taco Bell, otherwise they wouldn't dedicate their advertisement to alleviating fears by claiming the shrimp is of high quality. But is a cartoonishly ridiculous man, a "shrimp blogger," really the best way to get people to consider buying your product. Everyone in the world knows it's not good shrimp. Regardless of the opinion of this man who dedicates his life to writing short posts about the world's prawn population (a completely reasonable profession if you ask me.) Though I find it hard to believe he could afford to travel so much on what must be a meager salary. I mean, making money from blogging is hard enough...but when your topic is shrimp...whew...good luck.

My point is...everyone knows it comes frozen in a big plastic bag. Everyone knows, while probably safe, it's not worth the chance. Even if it won't get me sick, I'd assume they're the size of a quarter and not nearly enough to fill a 5-year-old. So instead of making grandiose claims about the quality of your food that nobody will ever believe, why not instead address the reservations that would stop someone from purchasing your new offering. Show a commercial with someone making it...or someone eating it...or someone enjoying it. Don't show me a man with a ridiculous made-up profession in ecstasy over a meal at Taco Bell.

And next time you decide to offer a seafood product, put it out at the beginning of Lent when McDonald's starts serving their Filet-of-Fish, not at the end, when Catholics are on the cusp of being able to eat meat again.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Fake News Program Commercials

Let me tell you something. If you advertise a product using a commercial that emulates a news program, complete with a make-up swathed newswoman singing your product's praises and the words breaking news flashing across the screen, you're hurting your own credibility. I understand that it might help your advertisement cut through the clutter of others, but it is also deceptive. And when you are trying to get people to use your product or service, the last thing you want is for them to feel tricked by your advertising. Because if they feel tricked by your advertising, they won't take anything said in your commercial seriously. Thus rendering the advertisement a waste of valuable money. I respect that people are trying to be creative and find new ways to get TV viewer's attention, but deception doesn't help your cause.

I've seen a few financial services commercials, and a cablevision commercial using these techniques. I wouldn't trust the latter anyway, but making a faux-news program that looks more like a sleazy infomercial isn't the way to go.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Who Loses? (HULUses)

It was announced yesterday that The Daily Show and Colbert Report, along with less popular Comedy Central offerings will no longer be available on Hulu. My first reaction was...that's dumb, offering streaming video of your episodes increases awareness of the product and viewership. Granted most revenue is drawn from television advertisements, which are not at all helped by online watchers, but still...a viewer is a viewer regardless of the medium, and companies are beginning to draw revenue from online episodes too.

But then I found out that they will still offer full episodes on TheDailyShow.com and TheColbertReport.com, which makes much more sense for them because then the people watching online see their advertisements without a middle man taking a piece of the pie.

The only thing Hulu has going in its favor is the convenience of it all...which as we know, American's love. But convenience doesn't matter to the companies who pay for the development and production of these shows. They want numbers...they want results. So Hulu needs to prove that having videos on their sight will provide more viewers, more advertising dollars, and more promotion for upcoming episodes, otherwise Comedy Central won't be the last to pull their programming away from the popular media streaming website.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Human Signage

I was walking through Times Square today and saw someone wearing a sign around their shoulders advertising some product (it's hard to tell when every square inch is trying to sell you something) and thought to myself something smug and demeaning like, "Wow...you know it's bad when your job can be done just as effectively by a wooden or metal pole." But then I got to thinking and you know what, paying some shlub minimum wage to stand around in the rain during peak foot traffic hours makes a lot more sense than spending tens and hundreds of thousands a week to plaster your poster ten stories up where you have to crane your neck back so far its bound to snap just to see the advertisement.

So kudos to you, inventors of human signage...your message still gets lost in the clutter, and your credibility may be called into question the same as any establishment that has some guy handing out flyers that everyone in the world is going to crumble up and throw in the next garbage can...but at least you're wasting less money.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The Lunch of Champions...

While checking the Olympics for an exciting event like snowboarding or any sort of sport where I can see people jumping and doing flips, a commercial came on for McDonald's. I realize the company is one of the Olympics' major sponsors, along with Coca-Cola, and the global appeal of the event meshes well with McDonald's strong grasp over every inch of the world. My issue with the company is their advertisement.



I realize you are trying to make the most of your sponsorship by proclaiming your food is eaten by Olympic Athletes...but are people really supposed to believe that these world-class ambassadors of sports and their highly-trained physiques are fueled by chicken nuggets dipped in some new-fangled sweet chili sauce? It's insulting to people's intelligence. At least if you're going to market your meals as something a physically active person would enjoy show the salads you offer. Maybe advertise your healthy choice menu. Because everyone in the world knows that Olympic Gold is not won with Golden Brown Chicken Nuggets.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

I'm Going to Disneyworld!

I was watching Sportscenter today and saw the annual post-Super Bowl Disney advertisement of the Super Bowl MVP saying "I'm going to Disney World!" or "I'm going to Disney Land!"

It got me thinking, how exactly in the chaos of the postgame with every player mobbed by a swarm of cameramen and reporters jabbing recording devices at their jaws do they manage to organize the player saying it? What if among the hundreds of people shouting at the player, the voice of the Disney producer gets lost? What if the player simply pushes through the go celebrate with his teammates where he should be? Or what if the person refuses to do it because they want to be compensated? Are they compensated? Does Disney have a deal with the NFL where their players are contractually obligated to do the commercial, and told to be ready for it should they win the Super Bowl? Or the only question I know the answer to...Does it matter? Nope, but I was just curious how it all comes together in such a hectic environment.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

No, Daddy, No

The Super Bowl has become more of an advertising expo than a football game for a sizable portion of the American public, and every year the top advertising firms try to put together a creative list of ads for the top companies. It's a hard task to make millions laugh with only a thirty second spot, but more times than not the creative departments pull through and make a few memorable ads. But the important thing to note is that they try new things every year. They do not recycle the same style of advertising over and over again. This brings us to Go Daddy.

Go Daddy has long been using what is known as shock advertising, overtly sexual ads meant to cut through the clutter because they're controversial. The only problem is that Go Daddy advertisements, while trying to be risque...are not at all. They're tame and tiresome. I respect that Danica Patrick is the only female race-car driver, but the fact that she is marginally attractive as well does not make her a sex symbol.

So to pair her with other decent looking females in a suggestive setting, and imply that the unrated continuation of the advertisement on the internet is even more racy...is not effective for two reasons.

1. The internet has no shortage of places to look for celebrity nipple slips and pornography. Viewers do not need to go to Go Daddy.com to see anything remotely sexual...it's everywhere! As a register of domain names, they should know that better than anyone.

2. You are basically using the biggest stage in the world to advertise another advertisement. They are not selling their product, they are trying to get people on their website to view the more steamy version of the advertisement. I realize they hope the increased traffic will result in some sales from people who after viewing the "shocking scene" take a look at their services, but chances are, the only people who have any interest in seeing this unrated commercial are twelve year old boys who don't even know what a domain name is. Not to mention the fact that you are asking the American public to get off of their couches and go over to the computer to seek out something they will be disappointed by.

Go Daddy really needs to try something new...it was fun the first year, but you can't keep doing the same thing over and over again. It cheapens the advertisement, especially when aired on the one day that people are actually paying attention to them.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The following RANT has been approved for ALL AUDIENCES

What is the purpose of a movie preview?

Is it to promote awareness of an upcoming film, or is it to entice viewers to go to the theater and spend $10 on a ticket, $10 more on popcorn and soda, $7 for each action figure, $25 for the t-shirt, $15 for the poster, and eventually $30 for the three-disc special collector's edition dvd (pre-ordered, of course)?

I don't remember when movie executives made the decision to include the name and release date at the top of the screen throughout the entirety of every television trailer, but it needs to stop. Have our attention spans really become this embarrassingly short? Are some people really incapable of waiting to the end of a thirty second spot to see the release information?

If you have half-a-minute to make an impression, you should want all eyes on the small collection of images flickering across the screen, and not at the words plastered above them. People get distracted easily enough. Since this post is about film, it's only right I borrow a timeless phrase from the medium. "If you build it, they will come."

Well...if you build a compelling conflict in thirty seconds, the audience will find out when the movie comes out, because they'll be there at the end of the television ad. The inverse is a whole group of viewers who know nothing but a name and date, and have no inclination to see the film because they were too busy glancing up at the annoyance above than seeing anything compelling below.

I understand that in the Information Age marketers are just trying to get their name to cut through the clutter with the hope that merely recognition of the title might compel viewership or further investigation by watching the trailer online, but can 30 seconds of obstructed view really generate greater sales?

If it does...it's only a matter of time before every commercial has a bothersome black banner blotting out the top of the TV screen. And if that happens...it's only a matter of time before my TV has a big hole right in the center from where my shoe went through it.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor