Credit where credit is due

A lot of people who have visited this site recently have done so by searching for the Overstock.com ad which I talked about a few weeks ago. It was one of our most heavily-read and heavily-commented-upon posts, and, to put it mildly, not everyone who read it agreed with my assessment of it. So, to show you that I don't just have a bias against Southerners, here is the latest ad in Overstock's Joey and Rory series, which I thought was much better and which I will not be snarky about.



This is a significant improvement over the other ad, for any number of reasons.

1. Joey and Rory are not allowed to talk.
Whoops, already broke my vow of non-snarkiness. But seriously, though - by avoiding things like the awkward phone conversation at the beginning of the other ad, this one stays much more on message.

2. The premise is much better integrated with the Overstock brand.
In the other ad, as I noted, the Overstock branding really doesn't have a lot to do with the plot. By comparison, the plot of this ad involves buying presents for friends, and suggests that Overstock.com is a good place to do that. That's a lot better than just the purchase of a single guitar (which, by the way, Rory is not playing in this ad, proving that he already owned a guitar and rendering the other ad even stupider in hindsight).

3. Overstock.com takes credit for something they can realistically take credit for.
In the other ad, Overstock basically implies that they have something to do with Joey and Rory being in love, which is clearly a ridiculous reach. In this ad, the only thing Overstock is really taking credit for is facilitating Joey's generosity, which strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to claim.

4. The song is much, much more appealing.
Possibly because Joey and Rory did not write it. (Oops. Sorry again. It's hard to just turn off.)

So, there you have it. A solid Overstock.com ad that I did not have problems with, that features Joey and Rory in their down-home milieu. Everyone who suggested that I have something against the South is hereby instructed to get off my case. I do have one complaint about this ad, though - where the hell is Rufus? How could we not get a scene where someone unwraps a chew toy and gives it to him? Maybe it's in a 60-second version somewhere. Rufus' fans demand it.

Sanity makes a comeback

Here at The Ad Wizards, we're not usually about reasoned, objective critique of every major ad campaign that comes down the pike. We find ads we think suck, and we dick on them to expected degrees. (Occasionally, just to mix it up, we do praise ads we like, but that's accounted for roughly three percent of our posting output so far.) But we're not exactly, I don't know, Ad Age or anything.

Well, recently, I posted about Wendy's finally admitting that their "red wig" campaign was just not doing it. In that post, I mentioned the new Wendy's campaign and wished them luck on it being an improvement. The campaign just hit YouTube and I have to say, it's definitely an improvement.



It's a little slow-moving, and I find it odd that it seems like the cartoon Wendy is supposed to be talking to us but we never see her mouth move. But other than that, I like this ad - it focuses on good things, has nice folksy music and mannerisms, has a slogan that's fairly distinguishing if a little dopey, and, most importantly, it doesn't try to blast your face off with its "coolness." Wendy's senior VP of marketing strategy admitted in a conference call - as reported by AdAge - that trying to be cool was not really working for Wendy's.

Wendy's has decided that it shouldn't base its strategy on cool, and said food-buying decisions are based more on taste than the hip factor. "People don't go to Wendy's because it's a cool place," said Paul Kershisnik, senior VP-marketing strategy and innovation. "They'll never go to Wendy's because it's a cool place."

Bra-fucking-vo. Seriously. Usually that indicates sarcasm, but I am dead serious here. Given that a lot of advertising aimed at the coveted 18-to-34 set has devolved into a contest to see who can do the most random "funny" shit, it is incredibly refreshing to see a company of Wendy's stature decide that it should get back to basics, and then do so with a classy ad that gets its point across and actually advertises its product without being incredibly obnoxious.

Here's what I don't get: people who get paid to analyze ads - in particular, Teressa Iezzi over on AdAge - seem to have liked the "red wig" series and hate this new series.

Love it or hate it, the red-wig campaign was a step forward for forgettable Wendy's. The new spots? It feels wrong to blame the agency for this silliness, as it's clear that the ads are the sole responsibility of the client. But the effort is so spectacularly terrible that it warrants some discussion. Where to begin? The anodyne tone; the insipid voice-over uttering lines such as "If hamburgers were meant to be frozen, wouldn't cows come from Antarctica?"; the empty chatter about "authenticity" and "honesty" surrounding the campaign. The food shots aren't even that great.

I close with an earnest question for the marketers out there: Does this kind of advertising work?

Um, didn't we already see that the red wig ads didn't work? The voice-over for this one could probably be better and yes, the "Antarctica" line (in the other ad I didn't post) is cringe-inducingly homespun. But I liked the food shots and overall tone and, while I don't get paid for this, I think I'm probably closer to the average consumer than someone who actually works in advertising is. I suppose if your only concern is people recognizing the commercials, then the red wig ads worked like a charm. By virtue of their stripped-down nature, the new ads are never going to do that. But where's the proof that ads like the red wig campaign actually get people in the door? Weren't Wendy's sales down under that campaign?

In the earliest days of television advertising, it was pretty much just a bald-faced pitch - frequently the host of a show would step aside in the middle of a program, hold a product up to the camera, and give a little spiel about it. While this may not be the ideal scenario, it seems to me like we've gone to pretty much the exact opposite end of the spectrum - many commercials these days are just 30-second movies with product placement, and what the product is isn't always even important. Take a look at virtually any Bud Light ad - you could replace the Bud Light with any other beer, or in a few cases just about any other object in creation, and the commercials would run exactly the same. Sure, Bud Light doesn't really need to sell itself at this point, but that's merely one example. This blog is littered with ads whose first concerns are "Do something funny or potentially memorable" and whose product pitches lag way behind in terms of importance; the Sobe Life Water Super Bowl ad that we lambasted is a good recent example. Does it have anything to do with Life Water? Does it tell you anything about Life Water? Of course not. It's 60 seconds of insane dancing lizards designed to do nothing more than get people to notice the dancing lizards. I wonder how many people could even tell you exactly what product that ad was for, two days after it aired.

The thing is, McDonald's makes friendly, folksy commercials all the time. When are they ever criticized for doing so? Is Wendy's somehow obligated to make distinctively annoying ads just because they're running third in the burger race? Since when does that make a difference? Just look at the cola wars. Pepsi has spent significant chunks of its time attacking Coke in the last 25 years or so; in 1987, Pepsi had gained 32% of the overall beverage market, while Coke was barely a point ahead. In 20 years since then, Pepsi has made it all the way to... 31.2% in 2006, with Coke now almost 12 points ahead. How did 20 years of negative advertising work out for you, Pepsi? And Pepsi's commercials haven't exactly been unrecognizable - everyone knew who Hallie Kate Eisenberg was back in 1999-2000, and the "Joy of Cola" jingle was quite familiar. On the other hand, if you're like me, you hated ads like this one. As I often say on here, is that kind of smug-ass pitch really selling anyone on your product? The answer, according to market share, is: no. (And yes, I know that encompasses all brands. So here: in 1996, Pepsi-Cola trailed Coca-Cola by about six points in market share, 20.8 to 14.9; in 2006, it was 15.9 to 10.2, a difference of 5.7 instead of 5.9. Clearly all those "Joy of Cola" ads really moved the ol' needle.)

I should probably wrap this up, so let me close with this: I don't run focus groups, but I see little evidence from my perusal of articles on the subject that "hilarious" ads like the red wig campaign do much for sales. Brand recognition is all well and good, but there's positive recognition and negative recognition, and it sure seems to me like Wendy's felt it was getting way too much of the latter. So why are we - by which I mean a lot of people who aren't me - firing on Wendy's for trying to fix the problem? They've had marketing issues ever since Dave Thomas died; in lieu of ghoulishly propping him up like Orville Redenbacher, maybe it makes sense for Wendy's to return to the homey style he brought to the proceedings, rather than new-school junk like Mr. Wendy and the red wigs. I say, good thinking.

This is our parody

If you're anything like me - or just about anyone else who doesn't work for Chevrolet - you probably hate those John Mellencamp "This is Our Country" ads. Turns out the folks at Fruit of the Loom don't much care for them either.



Everyone recognizes those Chevy ads as annoying and incredibly full of themselves, so they were a pretty ripe target for parody - although it's a little odd to see Fruit of the Loom doing it, rather than another automaker. I guess one brand war at a time is enough.

A gold star for Fruit of the Loom, although I must say they run the risk of distracting people from the actual product message by virtue of the parody; when I first saw the ad, I spent most of the 30 seconds thinking, "Is this song a parody of those Chevy ads?" and almost none noticing the visual image of all the people wearing tagless t-shirts and sweatpants in lieu of "standard" clothing. Most people still probably associate the name "Fruit of the Loom" with underwear, so making sure to get the message across that Fruit of the Loom makes many other products was fairly important. It's not that they didn't do it, but they did it in such a way that you'd have to see the commercial at least a couple times for it to really sink in, and that can be a risky proposition. Still, I'd say this is one of the better ads I've seen recently.

From the vault -- a good one

It's been a while since we posted an ad we liked, so here is an old favorite of mine and Windier's from 2004:



Diet Coke did right by us here. The whole commercial creates a mood -- late afternoon sun, the beach, playful rollerskating, music that makes you want to dance and, oh yes, Nicole Vicius. If I knew how to rollerskate, I'd be at that park every weekend evening. The graceful way they move, combined with the energetic bubble animation, makes this scene look like more fun than should be legally permitted. And it's not just creative direction for creative direction's sake -- from the opening second you see the brand name. The tagline, "Light it up," also works well with the diet product.

Compare the Diet Coke spot with this hack job from Intel. They both use music and dancing to showcase their products, but one outclasses the other exponentially.

Now, Diet Coke, if you could only do something about that aspartame thing, I think we'd all feel better about swilling your soda.

When it does work, it's magic.

Here's a Starbucks commercial that I do find quite winning:



It's just so damn silly, but wouldn't we all appreciate bleachers full of chanting fans and a self-styled mascot cheering us on when our self-esteem needs a little boost? The fact that the mascot can do the worm is just icing on the cake.

Slow clap.

I am totally okay with this commercial, although the shorter versions (about 30 seconds) are better because they get right to the gag, without as many "ooh, culture clash!" anvils falling on your head. First, it features a celebrity poking good-natured fun at himself; and secondly, In Da Club translates rather nicely to an orchestral arrangement.

Thank you, Vitamin Water. I probably won't drink your product, but I do enjoy this ad.

Brief commercial break...

If this were a blog about good ads, we'd probably need a separate section just for Nike. I don't know of another brand that continually produces such watchable advertising. And aside from "the most famous brand in world", there's really no other company that can represent itself with so little effort -- in this case, with just a casual, curvaceous graphic.

This spot from '04 is probably my favorite of Nike's oeuvre:



Arresting visuals, dramatic cinematography, a moving soundtrack (created by agency Wieden+Kennedy for the commercial), heartwarming images of triumph (when he's passing the sick children.) The 30-second version may have lost a bit of the original's luster, but it still had the main scenes and the music. How can you not love the shots at the end where the camera is a block away from Lance and the other bikers, following the action in breaks between buildings?

And the very end?

Just do it. (Swoosh)

When you spend decades buying ad space and use the same slogan and same logo, over and over, this is your reward -- paying off a commercial with a three-word sentence and a little half-moon drawing.

The spot, directed by Jake Scott (son of Ridley Scott), was much lauded during its time, and particularly beloved by sportswriters. I won't bother mentioning the accolades here, but just Google "Nike Magnet Commercial," and you'll see what I'm talking about. How many shoes did it sell? Is that even the point of this commercial? Nike, like Coke, needs to keep up awareness and maintain a positive brand image in the consumer's mind. So the next time they're at the shoe store, they'll see Nike shoes and think they're looking at a good product.

This commercial entertains, inspires, and generally makes you feel good. When you see it's Nike, you might even think "Maybe they actually care." They don't, but we can pretend!
For an amusing, and thorough, compilation of some of Nike's best work, go here.

They're not all bad

I don't want to talk exclusively about bad commercials, so I do feel the need to throw in the occasional gem. The tough part about qualifying a commercial as "good" or "effective" is the fact that you have to notice it's good. Technically the best possible ad wouldn't be one where you'd think "Hey, good ad," rather, it would be one where you'd see it, and there wouldn't be time to think about how great the ad was because you'd already be driving to the store.

That said, sometimes the stars align and you get a commercial that you notice, love, and feel sold on something. In this case, it comes from the unlikeliest of places - automobile advertising:



Where's the corny exchange between husband and wife? Where's the full-throated announcer ready with clotted boilerplate about how anti-locking, all-wheel driving and streamlining this Cabrio is? How about the leasing info? And the indecipherable half-jokes, where did those go? This ad is stripped of the templated borefest that plagues the sad majority of car commercials. It's just arresting visuals, a beautiful soundtrack, and a simple, intuitive message ("Who wants to go to a party when driving in this car is so much fun?")

When this ad ran in 2000, everyone benefited. Young people were introduced to Nick Drake, Volkswagen saw its Cabrio product (now called Golf) continue to grow into the world's third best-selling car model, and automobile marketers got to see how it's done.

You don't hammer it home with slogans and taglines, you don't overwhelm with leasing information or yawn-inducing product attributes, and you don't make us cringe with hamfisted humor. You simply concentrate on one message, and you offer it in an engaging, artful way. Remember, marketers, we have brains - let us use them.

Commercials that don't suck: Gatorade AM

I'm not sure I buy the idea behind Gatorade AM: the flavors didn't really seem all that much more "morning"-like to me, and I'm moderately suspicious of the implication that your body might need a different kind of replenishment at 7 am as opposed to 2 pm. I guess it's possible, but until someone rolls out a research paper for me, I'm going to go ahead and assume they're just hoping this will sell more Gatorade (perhaps their research has shown that people are less likely to drink Gatorade in the early hours and they figure some re-branding is the way to go?).

That said, I like the ad:



I'm a fan of pretty much anything showing celebrities (including athletes) in nontraditional milieus. In this case, we've got Peyton Manning, Kristine Lilly and Abby Wambach playing "schoolchildren," Mia Hamm as a soccer mom, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as a retiree, and Kevin Garnett as the classic postwar milkman, the latter of which is particularly entertaining to me. The music gives the whole thing a cheery, bright feeling, and the idea of having the Gatorade man replace your old bottle with a fresh one is simultaneously insanely incongruous but also both amusing and oddly quaint. It's one of those pictures of a world that doesn't exist - even if you replaced all the famous faces with regular people and the Gatorade with milk, there's no suburb in America that actually functions as pictured, at least not anymore - but is still capable of putting a smile on your face. Or mine, anyway. Gatorade, you get a gold star.