Flavored, vitamin-enhanced waters are all the rage, in spite of the fact that it's pretty easy to argue they have no compelling reason to exist. You may not want to hint at this, even as a part of a knock on your competition.
So, Vitamin Water has 125 calories and Propel only has 25. Advantage Propel, I suppose. But guess what has zero calories? Normal water, which can frequently be obtained without even having to pay for it! I know, I know - shocking. And if you have to do 500 sit-ups to burn off a bottle of Vitamin Water, you're still stuck doing 100 sit-ups to burn off Propel. Burning off actual water? Zero sit-ups!
Of course, actual water doesn't have vitamins - not that you couldn't take a supplement which would also add no calories to your diet - nor does it have a kind of gross, artificial fruit flavor to it like Propel does. So there's that, I guess. But this ad just plays like a luxury car ad where some $40,000 model talks about how their $50,000 competitor is too expensive. "Propel: When you want unnecessary calories, but just not too many."
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Kia knows their history
Have you ever heard the name "Millard Fillmore"? Perhaps in a high school American History class where you were browsing the names of various presidents, his name might have caught your eye. He was the president sandwiched between Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce -- an unremarkable trio of minor American leaders, to be sure, but I really thought I knew the identity of Millard Fillmore -- that was, of course, until Kia had the good sense to tell me otherwise:
President Millard Fillmore...
Right! I knew it. He was president.
... best remembered as the first president to have a running water bathtub...
Wrong. Kia -- listen to me, you have to know this is fucking apocryphal. A tiny iota of research will prove this to be true. I mean, aren't there factcheckers you can hire to take a look at your shitty ads? Or maybe this is a "joke"? But, you just look stupid if it's a joke because you make this myth sound real.
The funny thing is, there's a large amount of comedic material about Millard Fillmore that isn't fake. For starters, he was a Whig. Just that very word is funny. Also, he was born in a log cabin. His first job was as a clothmaker. He started the White House library (he was a nerd! That's funny!) He had a third nipple and named it "Professor Milkington" (I just made this up, but it's funnier than the bath tub joke, and that's just a joke stolen from H.L. Mencken.)
The other stupid part about this concept is that there are plenty of more obscure presidents out there they could have used -- presidents that don't have well-known comic strips named after them. William Henry Harrison was president for 31 days. John Tyler didn't do a whole lot, and he was a "Democrat-Republican" (make up your mind for Pete's sake! Am I right?). Zachary Taylor wasn't in office for much more than a year, being the guy who died right before the ever-unheard-of Fillmore.
... he's unheard-of....
See, you say that, but I distinctly recall his name, and something about his being a goddam American president. We're anonymous here at the Ad Wizards, but I will go on record now as saying that my profession is not that of Presidential Historian. And yet, somehow, I'd heard of this guy. I'll grant you that he's an order of magnitude less famous than, say, George Washington, but can we agree that he's not exactly some small town Vermont Alderman from the early 19th century who died of typhus at age 58?
So we're honoring him during Kia's Unheard Of Presidents' Day Sale
Look, it's not that I'm some huge Millard Fillmore fan. Dude signed the Fugitive Slave Act -- that's bad juju. It's just that I think the people who made these ads are really, really stupid, and they've made the terrible assumption, like many advertisers sadly do, that Americans are as dumb as they are. Hey Kia? We're just not that retarded. Sorry.
To commemorate Millard's bathtime, we've created this Millard Fillmore soap-on-a-rope.
Can someone explain to me why this is funny? This simply appears to be more stupid pandering. We're not dumb enough to believe that an American President can truly be "unheard of," and we're not dumb enough to find that kind of goofy, punny humor funny. I can't wait for this to go off the air next week.
So, who wants to go buy a car on Monday?
President Millard Fillmore...
Right! I knew it. He was president.
... best remembered as the first president to have a running water bathtub...
Wrong. Kia -- listen to me, you have to know this is fucking apocryphal. A tiny iota of research will prove this to be true. I mean, aren't there factcheckers you can hire to take a look at your shitty ads? Or maybe this is a "joke"? But, you just look stupid if it's a joke because you make this myth sound real.
The funny thing is, there's a large amount of comedic material about Millard Fillmore that isn't fake. For starters, he was a Whig. Just that very word is funny. Also, he was born in a log cabin. His first job was as a clothmaker. He started the White House library (he was a nerd! That's funny!) He had a third nipple and named it "Professor Milkington" (I just made this up, but it's funnier than the bath tub joke, and that's just a joke stolen from H.L. Mencken.)
The other stupid part about this concept is that there are plenty of more obscure presidents out there they could have used -- presidents that don't have well-known comic strips named after them. William Henry Harrison was president for 31 days. John Tyler didn't do a whole lot, and he was a "Democrat-Republican" (make up your mind for Pete's sake! Am I right?). Zachary Taylor wasn't in office for much more than a year, being the guy who died right before the ever-unheard-of Fillmore.
... he's unheard-of....
See, you say that, but I distinctly recall his name, and something about his being a goddam American president. We're anonymous here at the Ad Wizards, but I will go on record now as saying that my profession is not that of Presidential Historian. And yet, somehow, I'd heard of this guy. I'll grant you that he's an order of magnitude less famous than, say, George Washington, but can we agree that he's not exactly some small town Vermont Alderman from the early 19th century who died of typhus at age 58?
So we're honoring him during Kia's Unheard Of Presidents' Day Sale
Look, it's not that I'm some huge Millard Fillmore fan. Dude signed the Fugitive Slave Act -- that's bad juju. It's just that I think the people who made these ads are really, really stupid, and they've made the terrible assumption, like many advertisers sadly do, that Americans are as dumb as they are. Hey Kia? We're just not that retarded. Sorry.
To commemorate Millard's bathtime, we've created this Millard Fillmore soap-on-a-rope.
Can someone explain to me why this is funny? This simply appears to be more stupid pandering. We're not dumb enough to believe that an American President can truly be "unheard of," and we're not dumb enough to find that kind of goofy, punny humor funny. I can't wait for this to go off the air next week.
So, who wants to go buy a car on Monday?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
HDpus Rex
Inventing new words doesn't appear to have worked for Comcast, so they're on to the next tactic: borrowing old ideas.
Setting aside the fact that people opening their mouths and having song lyrics come out is not nearly as hilarious as Comcast thinks it is, we've seen this before. (Warning: the volume on the following ad is much higher than on the Comcast ad.)
Keep in mind: it wasn't funny when Avis did it, either.
One thing Avis didn't do was use a song recorded by a porn star, one that's pretty clearly about sexual activity, and have a mother sing it to her son. Way to gross me the fuck out, Comcast. It's not like they tried very hard to make it fit within the commercial - they even have the son seem confused as to why these particular lyrics make sense in context. So why, exactly, did we think this was a good idea?
Setting aside the fact that people opening their mouths and having song lyrics come out is not nearly as hilarious as Comcast thinks it is, we've seen this before. (Warning: the volume on the following ad is much higher than on the Comcast ad.)
Keep in mind: it wasn't funny when Avis did it, either.
One thing Avis didn't do was use a song recorded by a porn star, one that's pretty clearly about sexual activity, and have a mother sing it to her son. Way to gross me the fuck out, Comcast. It's not like they tried very hard to make it fit within the commercial - they even have the son seem confused as to why these particular lyrics make sense in context. So why, exactly, did we think this was a good idea?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The Super Bored Awards 2008
Hi, folks. If you're anything like us, you were disappointed by the crop of ads that ran during Super Bowl XLII. There weren't any that were all that great, but more importantly for our purposes, even most of the bad ones were bad in more nondescript ways, as opposed to being truly horrifying like the infamous Snickers kiss and GM robot suicide ads from Super Bowl XLI. That said, there was still plenty of garbage to go around. So without further ado, we present The Ad Wizards' Super Bored Awards for 2008.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: Gatorade
Quivering: We called this one in the predictions, mostly because these guys are always good for a visually appealing spot. You can't beat the grass leaping along with Derek Jeter's footsteps as he walks through Manhattan. Even if you despise the Yankees, as we at Ad Wizards most certainly do, you have to appreciate the art direction in this ad and details like the little swinging batsman in the "Walk" sign on the streetpost. The payoff at the end with Peyton Manning and Bill Parcells is a little unnecessary, but I guess when you're Gatorade and your marketing budget is 10^94 dollars, you can afford to throw in some extra star power just for shits.
Honorable Mention: Bud Light
This ad gets listed on here for actually making us laugh. Will Ferrell, unlike Carlos Mencia, is a for-real comedian, and he has managed to help create a true rarity - a good beer commercial. There's also some interesting risk-taking in the humor - calling out the alcohol content and using the word "suck." This ad is reminiscent of Bud Light's Axe Murderer spot from last year's Super Bowl, where Anheuser Busch managed to make one of their, like, fourteen ads watchable.
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: SalesGenie.com
Windier: I could spend all day talking about the sketchiness of the service that SalesGenie presumes to offer, but really I've already done that, and anyway the problems with this ad go so far beyond the product being sold. Why are they pandas? Why do the pandas have to talk with stereotypical Chinese accents? Why is the animation so mediocre? (Actually, I can guess the answer to that one.) Why is "Sofaz" misspelled? Is it some sort of inside joke? Panda psychic? (Note also that the psychic doesn't speak with the accent, meaning it was hardly necessary.) The whole thing is clumsy, nonsensical and vaguely racist. I expect low-budget hackery from the company that used the same actor in two completely different spots, but the Asian stereotypes (including font and music) really take the whole affair to another level. Why not just have the pandas running a laundry while you're at it?
SalesGenie clearly can't afford more than a 30-second spot on the Super Bowl, and I'm pretty sure they're more interested in having people talk about them - even if it is almost uniformly "Can you believe how fucking terrible these ads are?" - than they are in getting a product message out. But wow, does this ad not get its product message out. "Our business is in trouble! Oh, let's use SalesGenie! Wow, 100 free sales leads! Now we're rolling in it!" Bit of a cause-and-effect lapse there, no? I suppose SalesGenie needed the space to work in their patented "your life will be worse if you don't use us" pitch. I'm not sure how many human beings are worried about the prospect of ending up in the zoo, but I guess you can pick your own human stand-in for that, like "meth lab" or something.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: Sobe Life Water
Quivering: Here we were, innocently watching the Super Bowl to look for bad advertising, when a thunderous shockwave of awfulness struck us like a dull knife. Out of nowhere, there was Naomi Campbell, with way too much bangs, and lizards - lots of 'em, and poorly animated, too. "Did we just die?" we thought to ourselves, as we saw the lizards jerking back and forth to the 80's hit "Thriller." Maybe this was some kind of karmic payback for all the mean things we've said about advertising over the past months. At about the 45 second mark, when the lizards flashed their jewel-encrusted teeth, we were sure we had died. This was how we were going to spend eternity in advertising hell - our heads fixed on the television, "Clockwork Orange"-style, staring at the most odious computer animation, our pathetic sobs drowned out by Michael Jackson. And then, after 59 seconds, in which we lived 1,000 agonizing lifetimes, it ended. It was over, and it was real. We had a winner for "Most Overproduced Ad," but it came at a high cost. Tiny animated lizards will never be the same. We, as a nation, will never be the same. And most of all, Naomi Campbell will never, ever be the same.
By the way, we had predicted Pepsi for this category - and Sobe Life Water is a Pepsi brand. We'll call that partial credit. As it turns out, the Justin Timberlake spot just wasn't over-produced enough.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: Bud Light
Windier: I shudder to think from what adult-education program Carlos Mencia would be drawing a check. Bud Light goes a little bit gutsy with this one, as they're counting on the viewer to remember last year's awful ad so that this year's is just awful, instead of awful and totally random. The stereotypes, if anything, are even thicker this time - hilarious foreign accents! African guys who carry chickens everywhere! Listen to this dude say "Bood Light!" Fucking hysterical! - and make even less sense. Is Mencia teaching a class for social retards? Just because someone isn't a native speaker of English doesn't mean their idea of complimenting a woman is holding up a live chicken and suggesting she has the same eyes. And really, Mencia's idea of hitting on a woman is, "Hello! You are so very sexy!" You lothario, you.
There's not much that can even be said about an ad like this. Like most Bud Light ads, it isn't funny. But at least the other awful Bud Light ads that aired during the Super Bowl focused on Bud Light. This ad focuses on how funny it is when Indian dudes say Bud Light. Way to sell your product.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: GoDaddy.com
Quivering: There wasn't a lot to choose from in the way of sex appeal this year, so once again the favorite wins. The main reason GoDaddy.com is the winner here (and not, say, Victoria's Secret) is the product that they sell - domain names. Why do you need to show exposed skin to sell internet domains? And why do you need to show the exposed skin of Danica Patrick who, we're sorry, isn't even that hot?
The concept of the ad is to drive people online to watch the many Super Bowl ads that were rejected by Fox. The prospect of watching Danica Patrick not get naked on the internet causes mass havoc in the commercial, with even the women making a run to the computer to watch the rejected ads. This seems likely - young women start running when they hear they can see a female race car driver unzip her jacket, right?
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: Planters
Windier: As I've often noted on this site, certain ads don't just annoy me, they make me wonder what on earth the companies responsible for them were thinking. Such is the case with the winner of the SkyMall Championship Trophy which, as stated in our preview, goes to the ad featuring the worst overall attempt to sell a product. There are certainly a lot of contenders for so "prestigious" an award, but let's face it - of all the commercials that aired during the Super Bowl, there can be no doubt that Planters' spot stands out above the rest, for several reasons.
Reason #1: The pitch itself. The premise behind this ad is that Planters cashews are so good, men will be drawn to women who smell like them no matter how otherwise unappealing the women are. That's not inherently offensive, but it seems just a trifle counterintuitive to make the centerpiece of your commercial a comically ugly woman, doesn't it? "Man, these Planters nuts are great... they remind me of unibrows and unsightly moles. Mmmm." I won't even get into how silly the concept of cashew-as-perfume is, since I'm sure Planters was at least trying to be funny on this point.
Reason #2: The shoehorned-in sex appeal. Yeah, dab that cashew onto your cleavage. That's what we're all looking for. Oh wait, this woman is hideous. No one wants to see her cleavage. Smart move.
Reason #3: "Manstincts." Apparently Planters has decided it wants to focus on the male nut-consuming demographic, as the "Instinctively good" tagline from the ad ties into this website. That's right. Planters is now marketing peanuts as though they were... well, beer. This is basically a Miller Lite ad adapted to deal with nuts. It's trying to be funny, but it's really just kind of sad. The worst part is that the actual spot that aired doesn't seem crafted to appeal to men in the way that it should have been as the launch point of this campaign. If a man comes out of your ad thinking, "Planters thinks I should be fucking a bridge troll because she smells like cashews," is he rushing to the store for some cashews? I know I'm not.
I'm a little impressed that Planters bought into the Super Bowl at all, and at least we're not getting Mr. Peanut crotch shots anymore, but was this really the best they could do? It's a marketing strategy that seems unlikely to appeal to anyone. Good job.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: Bridgestone
Quivering: For the first year in a row, the Carlos Mencia Book Prize is NOT awarded to Carlos Mencia. Remarkably, someone found a B-Lister even more irrelevant - Richard Simmons. Why are there an aging rock star (Alice Cooper) and an aging fitness video host in the middle of a dark, woodsy road? And why did someone think this would be funny? The title of the ad, as listed online, seems to be "Unexpected Obstacles." And maybe if that were in the actual copy - "Avoid unexpected obstacles with Bridgestone tires" - it would make a lot more sense. As it is, it's just crazy.
Isn't buying tires supposed to be a manly thing? It's hard to imagine a middle-aged man walking into a Sears saying, "Hey, caught your Super Bowl ad last night. I love Richard Simmons! Hilarious shit. Made me feel like buying tires."
And at the ad agency, what do you tell your producer once the client greenlights your concept? "Hey, finally sold in that Super Bowl spot. We're going to need your help right away - we need to book Alice Cooper and Richard Simmons. Don't worry, it'll make sense once you see it. There's going to be wildlife to tie it all together!"
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2008
Winner: Sobe Life Water
Windier: Like the game itself, this one ended in an upset, but both Quivering and I agreed - this was not just the most overproduced, it was unquestionably the worst ad to air during the Super Bowl. It begins with the fact that the ad makes basically no sense. Naomi Campbell? Poorly-animated CGI lizards drinking Sobe Life Water and turning into Thriller dancers (in about the most awkward cut imaginable)? Unpleasant slurping sounds and what appears to be a gratuitous fart sound effect? Here's what this ad says to me: "We had five million bucks to blow and figured, 'People think the Thriller dance is hilarious.'" I know it's made a comeback in the last year or so because of all the hilariously ironic people using it at their weddings and crap, but let's get something straight - the Thriller dance is not something you want to be building your minute-long commercial around, especially when your commercial stars lizards and Naomi Campbell. (Naomi Campbell? Seriously? Was she just available, or what?) All told, this ad must have cost millions upon millions of dollars. And yet it barely even has a point. Previous Sobe Life Water ads, while bad in their own way, positioned it as a healthy beverage alternative. This ad... apparently claims that if you drink it you'll turn into a zombie. Rich in antioxidants? Fuck that. Rich in dancing lizards? Shit yes. I'm guessing that when you're marketing something to high school and college kids, "good for you" isn't exactly setting them off. But "thrillicious?" That video came out 25 years ago. Also, please stop trying to make "thrillicious" into a word. What are you, Comcast?
The ad itself was bad enough, but the Florida in Sobe's election as Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2008 was its online component, which, well...
Yeah. You actually just watched that. Let's check off all the revolting things about this one. Reference to interspecies lovin'? Check. Reference to lizard nudity? Check. Disgusting consumption of insects? Check. Attempt to use "thrillicious" as a legitimate adjective? Check. Not even a slight attempt to have the lizards look like the CGI lizards in the actual ad? Check. This might top GE for "worst online peripheral content to an already shitty ad," and that's saying something. Congratulations, Sobe Life Water: easily the worst ad of the 2008 Super Bowl.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: Gatorade
Quivering: We called this one in the predictions, mostly because these guys are always good for a visually appealing spot. You can't beat the grass leaping along with Derek Jeter's footsteps as he walks through Manhattan. Even if you despise the Yankees, as we at Ad Wizards most certainly do, you have to appreciate the art direction in this ad and details like the little swinging batsman in the "Walk" sign on the streetpost. The payoff at the end with Peyton Manning and Bill Parcells is a little unnecessary, but I guess when you're Gatorade and your marketing budget is 10^94 dollars, you can afford to throw in some extra star power just for shits.
Honorable Mention: Bud Light
This ad gets listed on here for actually making us laugh. Will Ferrell, unlike Carlos Mencia, is a for-real comedian, and he has managed to help create a true rarity - a good beer commercial. There's also some interesting risk-taking in the humor - calling out the alcohol content and using the word "suck." This ad is reminiscent of Bud Light's Axe Murderer spot from last year's Super Bowl, where Anheuser Busch managed to make one of their, like, fourteen ads watchable.
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: SalesGenie.com
Windier: I could spend all day talking about the sketchiness of the service that SalesGenie presumes to offer, but really I've already done that, and anyway the problems with this ad go so far beyond the product being sold. Why are they pandas? Why do the pandas have to talk with stereotypical Chinese accents? Why is the animation so mediocre? (Actually, I can guess the answer to that one.) Why is "Sofaz" misspelled? Is it some sort of inside joke? Panda psychic? (Note also that the psychic doesn't speak with the accent, meaning it was hardly necessary.) The whole thing is clumsy, nonsensical and vaguely racist. I expect low-budget hackery from the company that used the same actor in two completely different spots, but the Asian stereotypes (including font and music) really take the whole affair to another level. Why not just have the pandas running a laundry while you're at it?
SalesGenie clearly can't afford more than a 30-second spot on the Super Bowl, and I'm pretty sure they're more interested in having people talk about them - even if it is almost uniformly "Can you believe how fucking terrible these ads are?" - than they are in getting a product message out. But wow, does this ad not get its product message out. "Our business is in trouble! Oh, let's use SalesGenie! Wow, 100 free sales leads! Now we're rolling in it!" Bit of a cause-and-effect lapse there, no? I suppose SalesGenie needed the space to work in their patented "your life will be worse if you don't use us" pitch. I'm not sure how many human beings are worried about the prospect of ending up in the zoo, but I guess you can pick your own human stand-in for that, like "meth lab" or something.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: Sobe Life Water
Quivering: Here we were, innocently watching the Super Bowl to look for bad advertising, when a thunderous shockwave of awfulness struck us like a dull knife. Out of nowhere, there was Naomi Campbell, with way too much bangs, and lizards - lots of 'em, and poorly animated, too. "Did we just die?" we thought to ourselves, as we saw the lizards jerking back and forth to the 80's hit "Thriller." Maybe this was some kind of karmic payback for all the mean things we've said about advertising over the past months. At about the 45 second mark, when the lizards flashed their jewel-encrusted teeth, we were sure we had died. This was how we were going to spend eternity in advertising hell - our heads fixed on the television, "Clockwork Orange"-style, staring at the most odious computer animation, our pathetic sobs drowned out by Michael Jackson. And then, after 59 seconds, in which we lived 1,000 agonizing lifetimes, it ended. It was over, and it was real. We had a winner for "Most Overproduced Ad," but it came at a high cost. Tiny animated lizards will never be the same. We, as a nation, will never be the same. And most of all, Naomi Campbell will never, ever be the same.
By the way, we had predicted Pepsi for this category - and Sobe Life Water is a Pepsi brand. We'll call that partial credit. As it turns out, the Justin Timberlake spot just wasn't over-produced enough.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: Bud Light
Windier: I shudder to think from what adult-education program Carlos Mencia would be drawing a check. Bud Light goes a little bit gutsy with this one, as they're counting on the viewer to remember last year's awful ad so that this year's is just awful, instead of awful and totally random. The stereotypes, if anything, are even thicker this time - hilarious foreign accents! African guys who carry chickens everywhere! Listen to this dude say "Bood Light!" Fucking hysterical! - and make even less sense. Is Mencia teaching a class for social retards? Just because someone isn't a native speaker of English doesn't mean their idea of complimenting a woman is holding up a live chicken and suggesting she has the same eyes. And really, Mencia's idea of hitting on a woman is, "Hello! You are so very sexy!" You lothario, you.
There's not much that can even be said about an ad like this. Like most Bud Light ads, it isn't funny. But at least the other awful Bud Light ads that aired during the Super Bowl focused on Bud Light. This ad focuses on how funny it is when Indian dudes say Bud Light. Way to sell your product.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: GoDaddy.com
Quivering: There wasn't a lot to choose from in the way of sex appeal this year, so once again the favorite wins. The main reason GoDaddy.com is the winner here (and not, say, Victoria's Secret) is the product that they sell - domain names. Why do you need to show exposed skin to sell internet domains? And why do you need to show the exposed skin of Danica Patrick who, we're sorry, isn't even that hot?
The concept of the ad is to drive people online to watch the many Super Bowl ads that were rejected by Fox. The prospect of watching Danica Patrick not get naked on the internet causes mass havoc in the commercial, with even the women making a run to the computer to watch the rejected ads. This seems likely - young women start running when they hear they can see a female race car driver unzip her jacket, right?
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: Planters
Windier: As I've often noted on this site, certain ads don't just annoy me, they make me wonder what on earth the companies responsible for them were thinking. Such is the case with the winner of the SkyMall Championship Trophy which, as stated in our preview, goes to the ad featuring the worst overall attempt to sell a product. There are certainly a lot of contenders for so "prestigious" an award, but let's face it - of all the commercials that aired during the Super Bowl, there can be no doubt that Planters' spot stands out above the rest, for several reasons.
Reason #1: The pitch itself. The premise behind this ad is that Planters cashews are so good, men will be drawn to women who smell like them no matter how otherwise unappealing the women are. That's not inherently offensive, but it seems just a trifle counterintuitive to make the centerpiece of your commercial a comically ugly woman, doesn't it? "Man, these Planters nuts are great... they remind me of unibrows and unsightly moles. Mmmm." I won't even get into how silly the concept of cashew-as-perfume is, since I'm sure Planters was at least trying to be funny on this point.
Reason #2: The shoehorned-in sex appeal. Yeah, dab that cashew onto your cleavage. That's what we're all looking for. Oh wait, this woman is hideous. No one wants to see her cleavage. Smart move.
Reason #3: "Manstincts." Apparently Planters has decided it wants to focus on the male nut-consuming demographic, as the "Instinctively good" tagline from the ad ties into this website. That's right. Planters is now marketing peanuts as though they were... well, beer. This is basically a Miller Lite ad adapted to deal with nuts. It's trying to be funny, but it's really just kind of sad. The worst part is that the actual spot that aired doesn't seem crafted to appeal to men in the way that it should have been as the launch point of this campaign. If a man comes out of your ad thinking, "Planters thinks I should be fucking a bridge troll because she smells like cashews," is he rushing to the store for some cashews? I know I'm not.
I'm a little impressed that Planters bought into the Super Bowl at all, and at least we're not getting Mr. Peanut crotch shots anymore, but was this really the best they could do? It's a marketing strategy that seems unlikely to appeal to anyone. Good job.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: Bridgestone
Quivering: For the first year in a row, the Carlos Mencia Book Prize is NOT awarded to Carlos Mencia. Remarkably, someone found a B-Lister even more irrelevant - Richard Simmons. Why are there an aging rock star (Alice Cooper) and an aging fitness video host in the middle of a dark, woodsy road? And why did someone think this would be funny? The title of the ad, as listed online, seems to be "Unexpected Obstacles." And maybe if that were in the actual copy - "Avoid unexpected obstacles with Bridgestone tires" - it would make a lot more sense. As it is, it's just crazy.
Isn't buying tires supposed to be a manly thing? It's hard to imagine a middle-aged man walking into a Sears saying, "Hey, caught your Super Bowl ad last night. I love Richard Simmons! Hilarious shit. Made me feel like buying tires."
And at the ad agency, what do you tell your producer once the client greenlights your concept? "Hey, finally sold in that Super Bowl spot. We're going to need your help right away - we need to book Alice Cooper and Richard Simmons. Don't worry, it'll make sense once you see it. There's going to be wildlife to tie it all together!"
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2008
Winner: Sobe Life Water
Windier: Like the game itself, this one ended in an upset, but both Quivering and I agreed - this was not just the most overproduced, it was unquestionably the worst ad to air during the Super Bowl. It begins with the fact that the ad makes basically no sense. Naomi Campbell? Poorly-animated CGI lizards drinking Sobe Life Water and turning into Thriller dancers (in about the most awkward cut imaginable)? Unpleasant slurping sounds and what appears to be a gratuitous fart sound effect? Here's what this ad says to me: "We had five million bucks to blow and figured, 'People think the Thriller dance is hilarious.'" I know it's made a comeback in the last year or so because of all the hilariously ironic people using it at their weddings and crap, but let's get something straight - the Thriller dance is not something you want to be building your minute-long commercial around, especially when your commercial stars lizards and Naomi Campbell. (Naomi Campbell? Seriously? Was she just available, or what?) All told, this ad must have cost millions upon millions of dollars. And yet it barely even has a point. Previous Sobe Life Water ads, while bad in their own way, positioned it as a healthy beverage alternative. This ad... apparently claims that if you drink it you'll turn into a zombie. Rich in antioxidants? Fuck that. Rich in dancing lizards? Shit yes. I'm guessing that when you're marketing something to high school and college kids, "good for you" isn't exactly setting them off. But "thrillicious?" That video came out 25 years ago. Also, please stop trying to make "thrillicious" into a word. What are you, Comcast?
The ad itself was bad enough, but the Florida in Sobe's election as Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2008 was its online component, which, well...
Yeah. You actually just watched that. Let's check off all the revolting things about this one. Reference to interspecies lovin'? Check. Reference to lizard nudity? Check. Disgusting consumption of insects? Check. Attempt to use "thrillicious" as a legitimate adjective? Check. Not even a slight attempt to have the lizards look like the CGI lizards in the actual ad? Check. This might top GE for "worst online peripheral content to an already shitty ad," and that's saying something. Congratulations, Sobe Life Water: easily the worst ad of the 2008 Super Bowl.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Art of Subtlety
This dog has a bit of an idee fixe, can you tell what it is?
Clearly, this puppy is concerned about people's ass comfort. But are these situations really all that painful? Let us take a look at a couple of these peoples' positions that are just freaking this dog out:
People sitting on a ledge
Really? Doesn't seem that bad. Sitting on a stone ledge is a novelty -- it's better than, say, taking a seat on a pitchfork.
A kid squatting on a soccer ball
Actually, this wouldn't cause much ass pain. It might, however, be difficult to balance.
Someone falling while roller-blading
I'll give them the falling down thing. But, isn't falling down from roller-blading a more gluteal kind of pain, rather than the inner-ass pain you get from wiping with one-ply TP?
Family riding a see-saw
This is supposed to be a fun activity, and any posterior discomfort should be mitigated by the overall enjoyment of the ride.
A seated statue
FYI to Cottonelle: Statues do not feel pain.
Look, I appreciate the fact that you have to dance around certain subjects when you're advertising a personal care product like toilet paper. Clearly, other companies are guilty of the same approach. But having a puppy fetishisticly obsess over minor butt pain? The first time I saw this ad, I had no idea what the commercial was for until it ended. After I found out what it was for, I had no idea what the puppy's mission had to do with the "be kind to your behind" message.
Then there's the dog himself. Why did we need to give a perfectly adorable puppy such a cloyingly tacky voiceover? I can't find the "Mute" button fast enough when this commercial comes on. If you want to show a puppy because he's cute and soft, like your toilet paper, fine with me. But, for cripe's sake, don't make him out to be some butt perv -- just mention that your product won't tear up my ass, and let's get on with our lives.
Clearly, this puppy is concerned about people's ass comfort. But are these situations really all that painful? Let us take a look at a couple of these peoples' positions that are just freaking this dog out:
People sitting on a ledge
Really? Doesn't seem that bad. Sitting on a stone ledge is a novelty -- it's better than, say, taking a seat on a pitchfork.
A kid squatting on a soccer ball
Actually, this wouldn't cause much ass pain. It might, however, be difficult to balance.
Someone falling while roller-blading
I'll give them the falling down thing. But, isn't falling down from roller-blading a more gluteal kind of pain, rather than the inner-ass pain you get from wiping with one-ply TP?
Family riding a see-saw
This is supposed to be a fun activity, and any posterior discomfort should be mitigated by the overall enjoyment of the ride.
A seated statue
FYI to Cottonelle: Statues do not feel pain.
Look, I appreciate the fact that you have to dance around certain subjects when you're advertising a personal care product like toilet paper. Clearly, other companies are guilty of the same approach. But having a puppy fetishisticly obsess over minor butt pain? The first time I saw this ad, I had no idea what the commercial was for until it ended. After I found out what it was for, I had no idea what the puppy's mission had to do with the "be kind to your behind" message.
Then there's the dog himself. Why did we need to give a perfectly adorable puppy such a cloyingly tacky voiceover? I can't find the "Mute" button fast enough when this commercial comes on. If you want to show a puppy because he's cute and soft, like your toilet paper, fine with me. But, for cripe's sake, don't make him out to be some butt perv -- just mention that your product won't tear up my ass, and let's get on with our lives.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Hate to say I told you so
Usually, we here at The Ad Wizards don't talk much about the results of particular campaigns we've mocked, unless there's a specific impetus to do so in the comments section. We see an ad that we don't like, we hate it, we make fun of it, and we move on. However, given that I personally wrote about Wendy's "red wig" campaign on three separate occasions, I figured I might as well pass along the good news - Wendy's is giving up the fight.
We've said it all along - bad ads don't drive sales. People were aware of the Wendy's campaign, but they were aware of it in that "Hey, did you see that crazy ad with the wig dudes?" sense, not in the "Let's all go to Wendy's and get some burgers" sense, which is the one that you're more interested in if you're Wendy's. Ads like the infamous "Air Supply burger" spot (click the "occasions" link above) are too reliant on gimmick - even as the pitchman in that spot rattles off what is ostensibly a list of enticing ingredients, we're distracted by his stupid hair, douchetacular tone, and the confounding use of the singing burger just seconds later. Ultimately, you can barely even tell what it's an ad for; at least one person who read my post on the ad found it by Googling "burger king air supply ad," which I think tells you pretty much everything you need to know on the subject.
Wendy's replacement campaign, as announced at their convention Monday, is based around a cartoon Wendy and the slogan, "It's waaaay better than fast food. It's Wendy's." Personally, I find that slogan a little stupid, but it's at least an improvement - "That's right" is one of the worst slogans in modern times, in large part because it's so crushingly vague. ("That's right! We are called Wendy's!") And the animated character seems likely to indicate that the ads are going to be a lot more straightforward, making them much more inoffensive, which can only be a good thing. Although I was sort of hoping that Wendy's was going to choose my idea for the campaign, a digitally-altered Clara Peller dancing with a vacuum cleaner.
So, yeah. Not to toot our own horn too much - after all, we've cited Burger King four times since starting this blog, and they haven't had any problem with sales - but, well, we told you so, Wendy's. Best of luck with an improved campaign in 2008.
The change comes after the chain reported this month that sales at stores opened at least a year — considered a key indicator of a retailer's strength — fell 0.8% at U.S. company restaurants in the fourth quarter compared with a 3.1% increase in the fourth quarter of 2006. At franchise restaurants, same-store sales were up 0.2% for the quarter, compared with a 2.7% increase the year before.
For the year, same-store sales rose 0.9% for company stores and 1.9% for franchise stores compared with a 0.8% increase in U.S. company stores and a 0.6% increase at U.S. franchise stores in 2006.
After reaching a high of $44.22 last summer, Wendy's stock price has been cut nearly in half, with trading Monday morning at $23.54, just above its 52-week low of $22.48.
We've said it all along - bad ads don't drive sales. People were aware of the Wendy's campaign, but they were aware of it in that "Hey, did you see that crazy ad with the wig dudes?" sense, not in the "Let's all go to Wendy's and get some burgers" sense, which is the one that you're more interested in if you're Wendy's. Ads like the infamous "Air Supply burger" spot (click the "occasions" link above) are too reliant on gimmick - even as the pitchman in that spot rattles off what is ostensibly a list of enticing ingredients, we're distracted by his stupid hair, douchetacular tone, and the confounding use of the singing burger just seconds later. Ultimately, you can barely even tell what it's an ad for; at least one person who read my post on the ad found it by Googling "burger king air supply ad," which I think tells you pretty much everything you need to know on the subject.
Wendy's replacement campaign, as announced at their convention Monday, is based around a cartoon Wendy and the slogan, "It's waaaay better than fast food. It's Wendy's." Personally, I find that slogan a little stupid, but it's at least an improvement - "That's right" is one of the worst slogans in modern times, in large part because it's so crushingly vague. ("That's right! We are called Wendy's!") And the animated character seems likely to indicate that the ads are going to be a lot more straightforward, making them much more inoffensive, which can only be a good thing. Although I was sort of hoping that Wendy's was going to choose my idea for the campaign, a digitally-altered Clara Peller dancing with a vacuum cleaner.
So, yeah. Not to toot our own horn too much - after all, we've cited Burger King four times since starting this blog, and they haven't had any problem with sales - but, well, we told you so, Wendy's. Best of luck with an improved campaign in 2008.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Super Bored XLII
We're super bored over here at Ad Wizards. Why? Because there haven't been many new, rotten ads recently. The reason for the dearth of rotten ads? Why, the Super Bowl, of course, which will take place just one week from today. Yes, it's the perennial battle of which massive corporation spent the most money to annoy the shit out of America. Also, I guess, the Patriots and Giants are playing for the NFL title (minor detail).
Following Sunday's game, we'll be writing up our reactions to the Super Bowl commercials and handing out the first annual Ad Wizards Super Bored Awards. Here's a quick preview of what we'll be giving next week, and our predictions for who might be the big winners:
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Explanation: Humor's a subjective thing, as we've found out here on Ad Wizards. We'll tear apart ads that the three of us think use buffoonish humor, then we'll get attacked in the comments section by someone who thought it was a laugh riot. Well, call us elitist, but we think we are decent arbiters of humor, and we'll be awarding this one to the company that uses the clumsiest slapstick, the corniest pun, or the crudest sex joke.
Prediction: Always safe to go with a beer company. Bud Light's the only confirmed advertiser this year, but they alone usually have about eight awful jokes to choose from.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Explanation: Here. Need I say more?
Prediction: He's baaaack. We're picking Bud Light, duh. Unless someone signs Willard Scott or something.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Explanation: Given out to the ad that utilizes the most blatant sex appeal. There's a time and a place for beautiful people, but do you really need to see boobage when you're selling soap?
Prediction: Here is the Ad Age description of GoDaddy.com's 2008 Super Bowl initiative:
GoDaddy.com, known for its racy Super Bowl spots, submitted no less than 11 concepts to Fox for approval, but the commercial CEO Bob Parsons loved best was rejected. The spot, which features race-car driver Danica Patrick and an animatronic beaver, will be shown on GoDaddy.com Super Bowl Sunday. The aired commercial will feature a group of people watching the game and talking about the Danica Patrick ad that is online, which Parsons said is the "the funniest best ad we've ever done."
Oh, dear.
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Explanation: Here's the Ad Age description of this year's SalesGenie Super Bowl spot:
Buy: Three spots in pre-game show, first and third quarter.
Creative: Animated call to action for the mailing-list company.
Agency: In-house. Vin Gupta, founder-chairman of Salesgenie.com, conceptualized and wrote copy for the ads himself.
Good Lord. Somebody put Motley on suicide watch.
Prediction: We've already sent the award plaque to Mr. Gupta. Congratulations, sir.
Following Sunday's game, we'll be writing up our reactions to the Super Bowl commercials and handing out the first annual Ad Wizards Super Bored Awards. Here's a quick preview of what we'll be giving next week, and our predictions for who might be the big winners:
Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Explanation: This honor will go to the "best" commercial or, far more likely, the one that offends us the least. We can't guarantee there will actually be a "good" Super Bowl commercial, but if, somehow, an ad agency somewhere can contain themselves for a moment, we may end up with an ad that both tastes great and is less filling, so to speak.
Prediction: Gatorade and Coca-Cola are perennial contenders for a half-decent spot, and obviously they advertise big during football. Nike, which has been cited in this space previously for making particularly good ads, is another possibility.
Explanation: This honor will go to the "best" commercial or, far more likely, the one that offends us the least. We can't guarantee there will actually be a "good" Super Bowl commercial, but if, somehow, an ad agency somewhere can contain themselves for a moment, we may end up with an ad that both tastes great and is less filling, so to speak.
Prediction: Gatorade and Coca-Cola are perennial contenders for a half-decent spot, and obviously they advertise big during football. Nike, which has been cited in this space previously for making particularly good ads, is another possibility.
Most Overproduced Ad
Explanation: Have you ever felt that companies sometimes cram way too much stuff into 30 seconds? I think this Emerald Nuts spot from last year's Super Bowl is an illustrative example of what I'm referring to. I'm left thinking, "Wait, Robert Goulet, an office, ruining things, old guy climbing ceilings, mixed nuts... wha??" I think marketing people overextend themselves with the pressure of Super Bowl advertising, being the one time of the year when people actually care about commercials. And overproduced shit is usually what you end up with when you have too many cooks in the kitchen.
Prediction: This is wide open. Any company could come out with some Frankensteined piece of trash. Sadly, Emerald Nuts apparently couldn't come up with the money this year. We'll go with Pepsi, who we heard is creating a two-minute spot featuring Justin Timberlake.
Explanation: Have you ever felt that companies sometimes cram way too much stuff into 30 seconds? I think this Emerald Nuts spot from last year's Super Bowl is an illustrative example of what I'm referring to. I'm left thinking, "Wait, Robert Goulet, an office, ruining things, old guy climbing ceilings, mixed nuts... wha??" I think marketing people overextend themselves with the pressure of Super Bowl advertising, being the one time of the year when people actually care about commercials. And overproduced shit is usually what you end up with when you have too many cooks in the kitchen.
Prediction: This is wide open. Any company could come out with some Frankensteined piece of trash. Sadly, Emerald Nuts apparently couldn't come up with the money this year. We'll go with Pepsi, who we heard is creating a two-minute spot featuring Justin Timberlake.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Prediction: Always safe to go with a beer company. Bud Light's the only confirmed advertiser this year, but they alone usually have about eight awful jokes to choose from.
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Explanation: Here. Need I say more?
Prediction: He's baaaack. We're picking Bud Light, duh. Unless someone signs Willard Scott or something.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Explanation: Given out to the ad that utilizes the most blatant sex appeal. There's a time and a place for beautiful people, but do you really need to see boobage when you're selling soap?
Prediction: Here is the Ad Age description of GoDaddy.com's 2008 Super Bowl initiative:
GoDaddy.com, known for its racy Super Bowl spots, submitted no less than 11 concepts to Fox for approval, but the commercial CEO Bob Parsons loved best was rejected. The spot, which features race-car driver Danica Patrick and an animatronic beaver, will be shown on GoDaddy.com Super Bowl Sunday. The aired commercial will feature a group of people watching the game and talking about the Danica Patrick ad that is online, which Parsons said is the "the funniest best ad we've ever done."
Oh, dear.
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Explanation: Here's the Ad Age description of this year's SalesGenie Super Bowl spot:
Buy: Three spots in pre-game show, first and third quarter.
Creative: Animated call to action for the mailing-list company.
Agency: In-house. Vin Gupta, founder-chairman of Salesgenie.com, conceptualized and wrote copy for the ads himself.
Good Lord. Somebody put Motley on suicide watch.
Prediction: We've already sent the award plaque to Mr. Gupta. Congratulations, sir.
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Explanation: This one goes to the overall worst attempt to sell a product. Not worst ad, mind you - SkyMall isn't about bad ads per se, it's about useless products and the awkward attempts to make them seem worth buying, which usually ends up backfiring like crazy. Bad attempts to sell products on television include ads that make their products sound superfluous, ads that associate the product they're selling with vomit, and really any of a number of things that we'll probably end up seeing come Sunday. A good example from last year was the Doritos ad featuring the two unappealing people fucking at a supermarket checkout.
Prediction: This one's always kind of a wild card, but it's a good bet that some food product will take the honors; there's the best chance for our feeling sick to get in the way of the commercial's pitch.
The GoDaddy.com/SalesGenie.com/Bud Light/Miller Lite/Emerald Nuts Award for Worst Superbowl Ad
Explanation: The grand daddy of all the awards. Our version of the Ignoble Prize. This one goes out to the one commercial that stands above the rest as the absolute rankest, most putrid piece of utter shit that airs next Sunday night (Note: will most likely be a five-way tie).
Prediction: Too easy to say SalesGenie here, because they're really just going for PR value with the big (negative) reactions to their ads. I think they'll find the novelty has worn off. We're going out on a limb by not picking a beer company, and instead going with.... computer giant Dell. Apparently they've hired a music video director for the spot. We just drooled a little bit on our keyboards.
***
I think there might be one or two spots left for Super Bowl XLII. If you have $2.7-$3 million lying around, you, too, could reach millions of football fans next week. And, if you're lucky, you might, might, be walking away with a coveted "Worst Ad" award.
Explanation: This one goes to the overall worst attempt to sell a product. Not worst ad, mind you - SkyMall isn't about bad ads per se, it's about useless products and the awkward attempts to make them seem worth buying, which usually ends up backfiring like crazy. Bad attempts to sell products on television include ads that make their products sound superfluous, ads that associate the product they're selling with vomit, and really any of a number of things that we'll probably end up seeing come Sunday. A good example from last year was the Doritos ad featuring the two unappealing people fucking at a supermarket checkout.
Prediction: This one's always kind of a wild card, but it's a good bet that some food product will take the honors; there's the best chance for our feeling sick to get in the way of the commercial's pitch.
The GoDaddy.com/SalesGeni
Explanation: The grand daddy of all the awards. Our version of the Ignoble Prize. This one goes out to the one commercial that stands above the rest as the absolute rankest, most putrid piece of utter shit that airs next Sunday night (Note: will most likely be a five-way tie).
Prediction: Too easy to say SalesGenie here, because they're really just going for PR value with the big (negative) reactions to their ads. I think they'll find the novelty has worn off. We're going out on a limb by not picking a beer company, and instead going with.... computer giant Dell. Apparently they've hired a music video director for the spot. We just drooled a little bit on our keyboards.
***
I think there might be one or two spots left for Super Bowl XLII. If you have $2.7-$3 million lying around, you, too, could reach millions of football fans next week. And, if you're lucky, you might, might, be walking away with a coveted "Worst Ad" award.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Lose some weight, ladies!
Who doesn't love a good cheeseburger now and then? Sure, all that meat and cheese can't be very good for you, but hey, it's not like we can't handle a few of them. Right?
This is part of Subway's by now rather lengthy campaign to embarrass fast food chains by saying that their products lead to things like "saddlebags" and "a paunch". But there's a difference between saying that eating high-calorie fast food will make you fat and enumerating exaggerated consequences of that potential weight gain... right? Let's let the dialogue speak for itself:
Cashier: "Bloated feeling, regret, remorse, a bigger waist, loss of self-esteem..."
So, okay, fine. We would probably all be better off eating Subway than eating McDonald's, at least if you had to do one or the other on a regular basis. But isn't perpetuating the idea that people should feel bad about themselves for being a bit overweight slightly problematic? I'm not saying that people should be fat, just that it's probably not the best idea to have everyone in the world obsessed with dropping ten pounds.
Cashier: "...loss of boyfriend..."
This line is the real reason this ad is in here. Loss of boyfriend! "Be careful not to put on any weight, ladies! Your man will dump your fat ass like that." I'm okay with encouraging healthy eating, but lines like this make the ad play more like a threat. "Eat that cheeseburger and you'll die alone. And probably years earlier, fat stuff." There's a definite difference between eating right and being unhealthily weight-conscious; it's not clear to me that Subway is recognizing that.
Cashier: "...shame, years of therapy, fries and a shake."
Years of therapy? For eating one cheeseburger? Hell, even if you ate one every day! Years of therapy? You're a fucking sandwich shop, Subway, not some panacea for the world's ills.
The thing I don't get about this is why Subway suddenly feels a need to resort to ads that bully rather than just sell their product. Entrepreneur Magazine ranks Subway the #2 franchise in the United States, #1 American-based franchise in the world, and #3 fastest-growing franchise (after having been #1 in three of the last four years). Within a few more years, if not sooner, there will be 30,000 Subway restaurants worldwide; McDonald's, the world's single most visible restaurant brand, has around 31,000. Subway has been phenomenally successful and is showing few signs of slowing down. So what is the fucking deal? Why does the advertising have to get so harsh? "Eating anywhere else will result in loss of self-esteem and years of therapy?" Really, Subway? Fucking really? I know it's supposed to be a humorous ad, but let's be real here - Subway is not actually kidding. Clearly they want everyone to go to Subway instead of competing fast food chains, and that's fine; I would expect them to. But a series of ads that basically attempt to shame the viewer into doing so? Maybe it's me, but that just seems counterproductive. When was the last time you bought anything out of guilt?
This is part of Subway's by now rather lengthy campaign to embarrass fast food chains by saying that their products lead to things like "saddlebags" and "a paunch". But there's a difference between saying that eating high-calorie fast food will make you fat and enumerating exaggerated consequences of that potential weight gain... right? Let's let the dialogue speak for itself:
Cashier: "Bloated feeling, regret, remorse, a bigger waist, loss of self-esteem..."
So, okay, fine. We would probably all be better off eating Subway than eating McDonald's, at least if you had to do one or the other on a regular basis. But isn't perpetuating the idea that people should feel bad about themselves for being a bit overweight slightly problematic? I'm not saying that people should be fat, just that it's probably not the best idea to have everyone in the world obsessed with dropping ten pounds.
Cashier: "...loss of boyfriend..."
This line is the real reason this ad is in here. Loss of boyfriend! "Be careful not to put on any weight, ladies! Your man will dump your fat ass like that." I'm okay with encouraging healthy eating, but lines like this make the ad play more like a threat. "Eat that cheeseburger and you'll die alone. And probably years earlier, fat stuff." There's a definite difference between eating right and being unhealthily weight-conscious; it's not clear to me that Subway is recognizing that.
Cashier: "...shame, years of therapy, fries and a shake."
Years of therapy? For eating one cheeseburger? Hell, even if you ate one every day! Years of therapy? You're a fucking sandwich shop, Subway, not some panacea for the world's ills.
The thing I don't get about this is why Subway suddenly feels a need to resort to ads that bully rather than just sell their product. Entrepreneur Magazine ranks Subway the #2 franchise in the United States, #1 American-based franchise in the world, and #3 fastest-growing franchise (after having been #1 in three of the last four years). Within a few more years, if not sooner, there will be 30,000 Subway restaurants worldwide; McDonald's, the world's single most visible restaurant brand, has around 31,000. Subway has been phenomenally successful and is showing few signs of slowing down. So what is the fucking deal? Why does the advertising have to get so harsh? "Eating anywhere else will result in loss of self-esteem and years of therapy?" Really, Subway? Fucking really? I know it's supposed to be a humorous ad, but let's be real here - Subway is not actually kidding. Clearly they want everyone to go to Subway instead of competing fast food chains, and that's fine; I would expect them to. But a series of ads that basically attempt to shame the viewer into doing so? Maybe it's me, but that just seems counterproductive. When was the last time you bought anything out of guilt?
Friday, January 25, 2008
Advertising from 40,000 feet, Part the Funf
Here's what gets me about SkyMall product descriptions: no matter how insane or useless something is, the writers are unwaveringly earnest. They have zero sense of humor - they just try to sell, sell, sell.
So, who's the bigger fool, the one who writes stupid copy for SkyMall, or the one who snarkily blogs about them? I guess you can decide for yourself.
***
Here's a new one for those of you who enjoy the lack of self-respect that comes with wearing a muumuu, but wish there were something that kept you a little warmer....
Yes, someone has created a product called a "Slanket." Before anyone gets any ideas, that name is already trademarked. Apparently the Slanket people have chosen for their model the nerdiest man on the planet, and they pictured him hanging out completely alone, possibly talking to himself, at what appears to be Fenway Park. I know they're illustrating the "outdoor use," but can you see someone wearing that in front of tens of thousands of people?
Also, when you give your product a name like "Slanket," I think you cannot reasonably expect consumers to order it in colors like "Blue Limoges," "Moss Green," or "Pink Lavender." Those are a little haughty even for Martha Stewart.
***
I like candy, but sometimes I really want to feel like I've earned it....
Everybody Loves The Arcade "Claw" Machine!
Oh, yeah. Everybody loved that thing. That's what the kids were lining up for at Chuck E. Cheese. Wasting quarter after quarter not winning prizes? That was so much more fun than, like, actual video games that lasted more than five seconds.
Maneuver the claw to grab a treat and move it to the chute before the music stops!
It sounds like so much fun! I love games where I maneuver claws and drop things down chutes under a time limit.
Teachers and parents love to use it to reward a job well done.
Or, if The Sweet Machine is anything like actual arcade claw machines, NOT reward a job well done.
Simply the best gift idea ever!
Simply the most comically absurd overstatement from SkyMall ever!
***
This next item is up for the championship round in an online SkyMall Madness useless product tournament. Not hard to see why....
When you only need to know what day it is
Let me tell you something. If you're someone who only needs to know what day it is, you're going to need a lot more than a Day Clock. Like, for instance, a Month Clock. Or a clock that tells you who's President. Or maybe a clock that tells you if you're a man or a woman. This kind of stuff can all be easy to forget.
I'd like to know what kind of pot-addled high-school dropout uses this Day Clock. How would it come into play? "Oh man, what day... is -- oh, wait, it's only Tuesday? Dude, I wasn't planning on waking up until Friday..."
***
I believe in fire safety, but I need my fire escapes to be convenient and discreet....
"Be careful jumping the windowsill onto that flimsy rope ladder, three year-old daughter! Mommy will be safely on the ground waiting for you!"
***
Designed for the horticulture-inclined Cryptozoologist...
Reader Tyler also pointed out this gem. What's key about Big Foot Garden Sculpture is not its unblushing ugliness, but rather the fact that it's two feet tall. Who cares if it has big feet at that point? This is a pygmy Yeti!
Finely hand-painted for startling realism
Startling realism if you lack depth perception. And what is there to finely hand-paint here? It's all ape-brown!
***
Hey, if Barbie can use a toy bank card, then so can responsible adults!
Sound effects make it fun to save money!
Yep. That's my main motivation for having savings. Awesome sound effects.
When coins or bills are deposited, this savings bank adds them up!
Does it also add up the interest you're not getting by keeping your money in a plastic piggy bank rather than a savings account?
Like a real bank, it won't allow overdraws, and the "vault" is protected by a combination lock.
Except that most real banks allow overdraws (they just charge you a massive fee for them), and their vaults are protected by laser security systems, cameras and armed guards.
The best part about this product was that it was nowhere near the kids section in the catalog. This is seriously marketed towards grown adults. I wonder how many ATM Bank owners have ever kept more money inside the "vault" than the $30 they spent on the product itself ?
***
I hope I don't have to fly anywhere again soon. I think the Spring SkyMall is about to be issued, and I just don't think I can handle it.
So, who's the bigger fool, the one who writes stupid copy for SkyMall, or the one who snarkily blogs about them? I guess you can decide for yourself.
***
Here's a new one for those of you who enjoy the lack of self-respect that comes with wearing a muumuu, but wish there were something that kept you a little warmer....
Yes, someone has created a product called a "Slanket." Before anyone gets any ideas, that name is already trademarked. Apparently the Slanket people have chosen for their model the nerdiest man on the planet, and they pictured him hanging out completely alone, possibly talking to himself, at what appears to be Fenway Park. I know they're illustrating the "outdoor use," but can you see someone wearing that in front of tens of thousands of people?Also, when you give your product a name like "Slanket," I think you cannot reasonably expect consumers to order it in colors like "Blue Limoges," "Moss Green," or "Pink Lavender." Those are a little haughty even for Martha Stewart.
***
I like candy, but sometimes I really want to feel like I've earned it....
Everybody Loves The Arcade "Claw" Machine!Oh, yeah. Everybody loved that thing. That's what the kids were lining up for at Chuck E. Cheese. Wasting quarter after quarter not winning prizes? That was so much more fun than, like, actual video games that lasted more than five seconds.
Maneuver the claw to grab a treat and move it to the chute before the music stops!
It sounds like so much fun! I love games where I maneuver claws and drop things down chutes under a time limit.
Teachers and parents love to use it to reward a job well done.
Or, if The Sweet Machine is anything like actual arcade claw machines, NOT reward a job well done.
Simply the best gift idea ever!
Simply the most comically absurd overstatement from SkyMall ever!
***
This next item is up for the championship round in an online SkyMall Madness useless product tournament. Not hard to see why....
When you only need to know what day it isLet me tell you something. If you're someone who only needs to know what day it is, you're going to need a lot more than a Day Clock. Like, for instance, a Month Clock. Or a clock that tells you who's President. Or maybe a clock that tells you if you're a man or a woman. This kind of stuff can all be easy to forget.
I'd like to know what kind of pot-addled high-school dropout uses this Day Clock. How would it come into play? "Oh man, what day... is -- oh, wait, it's only Tuesday? Dude, I wasn't planning on waking up until Friday..."
***
I believe in fire safety, but I need my fire escapes to be convenient and discreet....
"Be careful jumping the windowsill onto that flimsy rope ladder, three year-old daughter! Mommy will be safely on the ground waiting for you!"***
Designed for the horticulture-inclined Cryptozoologist...
Reader Tyler also pointed out this gem. What's key about Big Foot Garden Sculpture is not its unblushing ugliness, but rather the fact that it's two feet tall. Who cares if it has big feet at that point? This is a pygmy Yeti!Finely hand-painted for startling realism
Startling realism if you lack depth perception. And what is there to finely hand-paint here? It's all ape-brown!
***
Hey, if Barbie can use a toy bank card, then so can responsible adults!
Sound effects make it fun to save money!Yep. That's my main motivation for having savings. Awesome sound effects.
When coins or bills are deposited, this savings bank adds them up!
Does it also add up the interest you're not getting by keeping your money in a plastic piggy bank rather than a savings account?
Like a real bank, it won't allow overdraws, and the "vault" is protected by a combination lock.
Except that most real banks allow overdraws (they just charge you a massive fee for them), and their vaults are protected by laser security systems, cameras and armed guards.
The best part about this product was that it was nowhere near the kids section in the catalog. This is seriously marketed towards grown adults. I wonder how many ATM Bank owners have ever kept more money inside the "vault" than the $30 they spent on the product itself ?
***
I hope I don't have to fly anywhere again soon. I think the Spring SkyMall is about to be issued, and I just don't think I can handle it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)