You know, Kellogg's, giving one of your most famous products a brand makeover would have been the perfect excuse to rid yourselves of the most annoying pitchmen you've got. But apparently you think their continuous idiocy and complaints about half of the product are good for business?
Guys who camp out in front of a store just to get a few boxes of cereal? And Michael Phelps is the one who gets dropped for smoking pot?
Obnoxious Loser #1: "Yeah, looks like we're gonna be the first to buy new Raisin Bran Extra."
Obnoxious Loser #2: "Surprised nobody else is here for the big debut of the almonds."
I'm guessing that anyone else who even considered it pulled up in front of the store, saw these guys out there, and instantly reevaluated what they were doing with their life.
Obnoxious Loser #3: "Oh, guys, I can see it! They're setting it up right now."
I believe this is the first time this actor has been given a line that doesn't involve a stupid non-sequitur at the end of the ad. Congrats, guy.
Obnoxious Loser #1: "Is it true? Are there really gonna be cranberries?"
Obnoxious Loser #3: "Yup, I can see the boxes, and there's definitely yogurty clusters in there too."
Wait a second - it's been well-established that what OL1 likes best about Raisin Bran Crunch is the raisins. But now he's a cranberry obsessive? Maybe he just really loves dried fruit.
Okay, hang onto your socks, people. This is about to get hilarious.
[A woman enters the store, glancing at the trio as she walks past. OL3 starts banging on the window.]
OL3: "Hey... you're cutting the line!"
[Variations on this continue for fully 15 seconds.]
I was prepared to say that this ad was not nearly as bad as the other Raisin Bran Crunch ads that we've made fun of on this site. It doesn't feature any truly stupid jokes and doesn't have any of the pitchmen suggesting that one full aspect of the product is inedible. But my God, really? If you're going to make a commercial a minute long, you need to have a good reason to do so. But 15 seconds, a full 25% of the ad, is devoted to nothing more than this idiot banging on the glass like he's at a hockey game?
OL2: "I think this is a 24-hour store."
[Our three brain surgeons rush into the store.]
And once again, your pitchmen are shown to be idiots, since the "24 Hour Savings" banner can be seen within the ad's first five seconds. Also, given that they went with this joke, why was the woman not shown buying a box of the Raisin Bran Extra? That seems like a much funnier payoff to me, and fits with OL3's "Noooooo!" But as far as I can tell she doesn't even pick up a box. That's all you could think to do with that gag? Really?
OL3: "They sell it in stores!"
That's your tagline? Um, okay. Hilarious. Remember the Raisin Bran Crunch ad where they made fun of the guys for coming up with super lame taglines like "You'll really enjoy this cereal?" Now they're actually using the taglines with no more than a slight whiff of irony, and they're even worse than the ones suggested since at least "You'll really enjoy this cereal" is a positive testimonial for the product. "They sell it in stores" is right up there with these other, rejected taglines:
"Raisin Bran Extra: It comes in a box!"
"Raisin Bran Extra: Technically, the cereal is inside a plastic bag inside a box."
"Raisin Bran Extra: You know how it can sometimes be annoying to open that plastic bag, like you're pulling and it won't open right, and then you accidentally tear it halfway down the side and it won't quite pour right? Doesn't that suck? Anyway, that's the kind of bag it's in."
"Raisin Bran Extra: The capital of New Zealand is Wellington."
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Tonton Macoutes of the Mind
Thanks to an anonymous commenter who reminded me that I'd wanted to write something about this stupid ad campaign.
Gee, that's... dumb. I'm reminded of those awful Hyundai radio ads, which unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on your viewpoint) I've never found in a linkable online form, starring the "Smartest Man in the World" whose two main characteristics are knowing trivial bits of information that a lot of people know, and being an annoying shill for Hyundai. Do you get the feeling that the people who wrote this ad have never looked up anything online in their lives?
Graphic: "Knowledge Generation Bureau... KGB."
For instance, a quick Google search of KGB would have reminded everyone that the first returning hit is the Wikipedia article on, you know, the fucking KGB, the Soviet intelligence service-cum-secret police which operated prior to the fall of Communism. I find it hard to believe that this KGB Mark II is really hoping that people make that kind of connection - the KGB isn't necessarily that popular an entity - so what are they going for? That tiny frisson of recognition that people get when they know they've heard something before but can't remember where? "Say, the KGB... where do I know that name from? Well, I know the name creates terrifying associations of power abuses in my mind... I wonder if they can tell me how many pounds of rice China exports on a yearly basis?"
Boss Guy: "We expect the best, Miss."
Recruit: "I am the best."
Boss Guy: "Well, we'll see. What's the capital of New Zealand?"
Not difficult. I know that without looking it up (Wellington), but either way, typing "capital of New Zealand" into Google gets you not only the answer but also Wellington's latitude and longitude, and that's before all the links that you can visit for more information.
Boss Guy: "The 17th Fibonacci number."
Recruit: "1597."
Also easily answerable via a Google search, although what are the odds you would ever need to know this on the spur of the moment?
[Setting: a pub in the east end of London. Two rough-looking working-class types, each represented by a half-finished pint at the bar, are staring each other down.]
Tough 1: The 17th Fibonacci number's 1597, you wanker!
Tough 2: Bollocks! It's 987 and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise!
[They scuffle. The bartender quickly fires off a text to KGB, which returns him the answer.]
Bartender: Lads! Lads! It's 1597.
Tough 2: Blimey, I feel a right git.
Tough 1: No hard feelings, mate.
Bartender: KGB, you've done it again!
And scene.
Boss Guy: "Who was Queen Elizabeth's husband?"
Elizabeth I (the queen he turns out to be asking about) was pretty famously known as the "Virgin Queen," to the point that an entire American colony, Virginia, was named for her. Again, I didn't need to look this up. The point here is not to brag about how much trivia I know - although honestly I am pretty good with trivia - but to point out that in a commercial like this, maybe stuff that isn't ridiculously common knowledge or findable via a three-second Google search should be used. It's the same reason those Hyundai ads were so dumb - am I really supposed to be impressed that the smartest man in the world knows the capital of New Zealand? Shouldn't the actual smartest man in the world be out trying to solve the credit crisis? At least KGB makes minimal bones about the fact that they only exist to answer trivia questions.
Boss Guy: "Define 'bootylicious.'"
Not really a word. And really not something I would imagine anyone needs defined. This was clearly an attempt at being funny and/or hip; fail.
Boss Guy: "Who sang 'Sugar, Sugar?'"
Again... not really that hard. Also easily found via a 0.5-second Google search.
Boss Guy: "Best cheesesteak in Philly."
Recruit: "Geno's."
At least answering that question would be a service other than answering mere trivia. Google also performs this service - while it doesn't just spit out a single answer, it certainly gives you plenty of webpage resources, including Citysearch Philadelphia's top ten, in which Geno's is #8.
Boss Guy: "How many hamsters, standing on each other's shoulders, would it take to reach the moon?"
Recruit: "What kind of hamsters, Syrian or Russian?"
Boss Guy: "Well, let's say Syrian."
Recruit: [after a moment] "2,282,764,988. And a half."
"You're hired based on that impressive display of answering a question no one would ever, ever ask in a million years!"
Boss Guy: "Which is which?"
Recruit: "The one on the right is Shine-Ola."
Am I supposed to text them pictures of my shiny surfaces for identification? What?
Boss Guy: "You'll do. Welcome to the Knowledge Generation Bureau."
Please explain what knowledge you are generating. Knowledge Retrieval Bureau? This just proves that they, for some reason, really, really wanted to call themselves the KGB. I would have gone with "Somebody Texts and Somebody Informs," or Stasi for short. What? It's just this cool-sounding abbreviation I thought of.
So KGB is, I guess, this service that provides information. Google with a narrower focus? Or Google with a way less effective mode of delivery? You be the judge.
Boss Guy: "Welcome to the Knowledge Generation Bureau."
"In case you forgot where you had just been hired in the 15 seconds it took us to walk down here. And that seems like a nitpicky criticism except the name was on the screen just now, so for whose benefit was I saying this?"
Stats: "You wanna know the only NFL player to score two safeties in one game?"
Boss Guy: "That's Stats. You need a RBI, or ERA, or a PPG - he'll get it to you PDQ."
Haw. A sequence of abbreviations - classic. Never seen that one before.
Boss Guy: "Over there's Trivia - good man to know on a pop quiz."
Most pop quizzes do not let you consult websites or text messages. Also, what percentage of KGB's mission statement as far as we've seen so far doesn't involve trivia?
Boss Guy: "That lady there is Mechanics, behind her is Quantum Mechanics."
"The people who wrote this ad don't know anything about either of those areas, but they sounded smart. Let's just move on."
Boss Guy: "The man with the contemplative air is Philosophy."
So wait - can I text these guys and get answers to profound, mystical questions? Shit! I'll be right back.
Okay, you guys. Apparently the meaning of life is "You do not have enough credits to send this message." Makes you think, right? In a way, none of us have enough credits...
Boss Guy: "And back there are the twins, Movie Times and Train Times."
Whatever.
Boss Guy: "And this will be your new partner."
Partner: "Hey."
Recruit: "Hey."
Partner: "Wanna grapple? It's a cross between-"
Recruit: "A grape and an apple. I know. And it's pronounced 'grape-el.'"
You're kind of a bitch, aren't you? Jesus. Also, writers of this ad, a grapple is not "a cross between a grape and an apple." It's a regular apple that's had grape flavor injected into it. You would know this if you had spent literally ten seconds Googling it.
Recruit: "Who's your friend?"
Partner: "Him? He works on the imponderables."
Recruit: "Like the Hodge conjecture?"
Congrats on actually working something difficult into one of your ads. Although given that there is a $1,000,000 prize associated with proving the Hodge conjecture, I'm guessing no one is going to be texting me the answer to that one.
Partner: "No, the really hard stuff, like what does a woman want."
Boss Guy: "Poor sap."
[Recruit attempts to stare a hole in Partner's forehead.]
Ah ha ha ha ha! Oh my GOD! I see no one who works for this bureau specializes in "jokes under four hundred years old."
Graphic: "Got a question? Text 542542 (KGBKGB)."
Seriously, have you ever seen anything more inessential? Why on earth would anyone need to wait for a texted answer when Google exists? I guess maybe if you're not near a computer and you just have to know right away, or however long it would take to get a reply, but I don't often have pressing quantum mechanics questions strike me as I'm walking down the street.
Here's a question I got - what job are this woman and her partner (who by the way seems way too dumb to be working for this company) going to be doing? Every essential position appears to be filled, particularly Trivia, clearly her only forte.
One more.
Guy: "Does anyone have the winning lottery numbers?"
Weird Guy: "Tonight's or next week's?"
Can I text in and get next week's lottery numbers? I take it all back, KGB is awesome.
Guy 2: "Is the Museum of Art-"
Weird Guy: "No, it's closed on Tuesdays."
Why are these people working here if the only solution they have to getting a simple question with a single, fact-based answer is to yell it out randomly?
Guy 3: "Where's the nearest-"
Weird Guy: "On Bleecker and West 4th."
Fun New York City fact: Bleecker Street and West 4th Street do not intersect; in fact, they mostly run parallel to each other. This took me 30 seconds to look up.
Guy 4: "What is a dendrobiu-"
Weird Guy: "It's a type of orchid."
Woman: "What was the name of the si-"
Weird Guy [singing annoyingly]: "Charles in Charge!"
Recruit: "Wow, that guy's amazing."
Amazingly annoying.
Recruit: "What's his-"
Weird Guy: "Horoscopes, ma'am, at your service."
"Actually, I was going to ask 'What's his fucking problem,' but thanks anyway."
At this point I'm beginning to doubt if the people who wrote these ads know anything about anything. Do you conceptualize horoscopes as:
(a) Vague, fortune-like predictions along the lines of "You will have a change at work this week" that could easily "come true" because they're so generic, or
(b) Factual information delivered by a psychic, teleportation-capable guru holding all the knowledge of the world
Although, come to think of it, this was my horoscope today:
"A strain appears in one of your relationships when the theme song to Charles in Charge becomes a bone of contention. Mend the rift with a trip to the art museum (although not on Tuesdays, when it's closed) or a bouquet of Dendrobium kingianum. Also, here are next week's winning lottery numbers: 5, 12, 29, 34, 48 and 7 on the mega ball."
Seriously, what the fuck. This is not what horoscopes are, to say nothing of the fact that most people could not possibly give a shit about horoscopes and anyone who really cares about them isn't going to need to obtain them via text message. Other than that, this service is extremely useful.
I guess I can see where KGB could have its uses, assuming it works properly, but in any normal situation it's no more valuable - and factoring in time concerns, less - than sitting in front of a computer that's hooked up to the internet. All that and these commercials are annoying, stupid, and give just the barest hint of what this service might be good for (unless it really doesn't do any more than these three ads suggest, in which case it's virtually useless). And it has a terrible name that somebody already used. Wait, I've got another one they can use instead: "Red Guards of Knowledge." No?
Gee, that's... dumb. I'm reminded of those awful Hyundai radio ads, which unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on your viewpoint) I've never found in a linkable online form, starring the "Smartest Man in the World" whose two main characteristics are knowing trivial bits of information that a lot of people know, and being an annoying shill for Hyundai. Do you get the feeling that the people who wrote this ad have never looked up anything online in their lives?
Graphic: "Knowledge Generation Bureau... KGB."
For instance, a quick Google search of KGB would have reminded everyone that the first returning hit is the Wikipedia article on, you know, the fucking KGB, the Soviet intelligence service-cum-secret police which operated prior to the fall of Communism. I find it hard to believe that this KGB Mark II is really hoping that people make that kind of connection - the KGB isn't necessarily that popular an entity - so what are they going for? That tiny frisson of recognition that people get when they know they've heard something before but can't remember where? "Say, the KGB... where do I know that name from? Well, I know the name creates terrifying associations of power abuses in my mind... I wonder if they can tell me how many pounds of rice China exports on a yearly basis?"
Boss Guy: "We expect the best, Miss."
Recruit: "I am the best."
Boss Guy: "Well, we'll see. What's the capital of New Zealand?"
Not difficult. I know that without looking it up (Wellington), but either way, typing "capital of New Zealand" into Google gets you not only the answer but also Wellington's latitude and longitude, and that's before all the links that you can visit for more information.
Boss Guy: "The 17th Fibonacci number."
Recruit: "1597."
Also easily answerable via a Google search, although what are the odds you would ever need to know this on the spur of the moment?
[Setting: a pub in the east end of London. Two rough-looking working-class types, each represented by a half-finished pint at the bar, are staring each other down.]
Tough 1: The 17th Fibonacci number's 1597, you wanker!
Tough 2: Bollocks! It's 987 and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise!
[They scuffle. The bartender quickly fires off a text to KGB, which returns him the answer.]
Bartender: Lads! Lads! It's 1597.
Tough 2: Blimey, I feel a right git.
Tough 1: No hard feelings, mate.
Bartender: KGB, you've done it again!
And scene.
Boss Guy: "Who was Queen Elizabeth's husband?"
Elizabeth I (the queen he turns out to be asking about) was pretty famously known as the "Virgin Queen," to the point that an entire American colony, Virginia, was named for her. Again, I didn't need to look this up. The point here is not to brag about how much trivia I know - although honestly I am pretty good with trivia - but to point out that in a commercial like this, maybe stuff that isn't ridiculously common knowledge or findable via a three-second Google search should be used. It's the same reason those Hyundai ads were so dumb - am I really supposed to be impressed that the smartest man in the world knows the capital of New Zealand? Shouldn't the actual smartest man in the world be out trying to solve the credit crisis? At least KGB makes minimal bones about the fact that they only exist to answer trivia questions.
Boss Guy: "Define 'bootylicious.'"
Not really a word. And really not something I would imagine anyone needs defined. This was clearly an attempt at being funny and/or hip; fail.
Boss Guy: "Who sang 'Sugar, Sugar?'"
Again... not really that hard. Also easily found via a 0.5-second Google search.
Boss Guy: "Best cheesesteak in Philly."
Recruit: "Geno's."
At least answering that question would be a service other than answering mere trivia. Google also performs this service - while it doesn't just spit out a single answer, it certainly gives you plenty of webpage resources, including Citysearch Philadelphia's top ten, in which Geno's is #8.
Boss Guy: "How many hamsters, standing on each other's shoulders, would it take to reach the moon?"
Recruit: "What kind of hamsters, Syrian or Russian?"
Boss Guy: "Well, let's say Syrian."
Recruit: [after a moment] "2,282,764,988. And a half."
"You're hired based on that impressive display of answering a question no one would ever, ever ask in a million years!"
Boss Guy: "Which is which?"
Recruit: "The one on the right is Shine-Ola."
Am I supposed to text them pictures of my shiny surfaces for identification? What?
Boss Guy: "You'll do. Welcome to the Knowledge Generation Bureau."
Please explain what knowledge you are generating. Knowledge Retrieval Bureau? This just proves that they, for some reason, really, really wanted to call themselves the KGB. I would have gone with "Somebody Texts and Somebody Informs," or Stasi for short. What? It's just this cool-sounding abbreviation I thought of.
So KGB is, I guess, this service that provides information. Google with a narrower focus? Or Google with a way less effective mode of delivery? You be the judge.
Boss Guy: "Welcome to the Knowledge Generation Bureau."
"In case you forgot where you had just been hired in the 15 seconds it took us to walk down here. And that seems like a nitpicky criticism except the name was on the screen just now, so for whose benefit was I saying this?"
Stats: "You wanna know the only NFL player to score two safeties in one game?"
Boss Guy: "That's Stats. You need a RBI, or ERA, or a PPG - he'll get it to you PDQ."
Haw. A sequence of abbreviations - classic. Never seen that one before.
Boss Guy: "Over there's Trivia - good man to know on a pop quiz."
Most pop quizzes do not let you consult websites or text messages. Also, what percentage of KGB's mission statement as far as we've seen so far doesn't involve trivia?
Boss Guy: "That lady there is Mechanics, behind her is Quantum Mechanics."
"The people who wrote this ad don't know anything about either of those areas, but they sounded smart. Let's just move on."
Boss Guy: "The man with the contemplative air is Philosophy."
So wait - can I text these guys and get answers to profound, mystical questions? Shit! I'll be right back.
Okay, you guys. Apparently the meaning of life is "You do not have enough credits to send this message." Makes you think, right? In a way, none of us have enough credits...
Boss Guy: "And back there are the twins, Movie Times and Train Times."
Whatever.
Boss Guy: "And this will be your new partner."
Partner: "Hey."
Recruit: "Hey."
Partner: "Wanna grapple? It's a cross between-"
Recruit: "A grape and an apple. I know. And it's pronounced 'grape-el.'"
You're kind of a bitch, aren't you? Jesus. Also, writers of this ad, a grapple is not "a cross between a grape and an apple." It's a regular apple that's had grape flavor injected into it. You would know this if you had spent literally ten seconds Googling it.
Recruit: "Who's your friend?"
Partner: "Him? He works on the imponderables."
Recruit: "Like the Hodge conjecture?"
Congrats on actually working something difficult into one of your ads. Although given that there is a $1,000,000 prize associated with proving the Hodge conjecture, I'm guessing no one is going to be texting me the answer to that one.
Partner: "No, the really hard stuff, like what does a woman want."
Boss Guy: "Poor sap."
[Recruit attempts to stare a hole in Partner's forehead.]
Ah ha ha ha ha! Oh my GOD! I see no one who works for this bureau specializes in "jokes under four hundred years old."
Graphic: "Got a question? Text 542542 (KGBKGB)."
Seriously, have you ever seen anything more inessential? Why on earth would anyone need to wait for a texted answer when Google exists? I guess maybe if you're not near a computer and you just have to know right away, or however long it would take to get a reply, but I don't often have pressing quantum mechanics questions strike me as I'm walking down the street.
Here's a question I got - what job are this woman and her partner (who by the way seems way too dumb to be working for this company) going to be doing? Every essential position appears to be filled, particularly Trivia, clearly her only forte.
One more.
Guy: "Does anyone have the winning lottery numbers?"
Weird Guy: "Tonight's or next week's?"
Can I text in and get next week's lottery numbers? I take it all back, KGB is awesome.
Guy 2: "Is the Museum of Art-"
Weird Guy: "No, it's closed on Tuesdays."
Why are these people working here if the only solution they have to getting a simple question with a single, fact-based answer is to yell it out randomly?
Guy 3: "Where's the nearest-"
Weird Guy: "On Bleecker and West 4th."
Fun New York City fact: Bleecker Street and West 4th Street do not intersect; in fact, they mostly run parallel to each other. This took me 30 seconds to look up.
Guy 4: "What is a dendrobiu-"
Weird Guy: "It's a type of orchid."
Woman: "What was the name of the si-"
Weird Guy [singing annoyingly]: "Charles in Charge!"
Recruit: "Wow, that guy's amazing."
Amazingly annoying.
Recruit: "What's his-"
Weird Guy: "Horoscopes, ma'am, at your service."
"Actually, I was going to ask 'What's his fucking problem,' but thanks anyway."
At this point I'm beginning to doubt if the people who wrote these ads know anything about anything. Do you conceptualize horoscopes as:
(a) Vague, fortune-like predictions along the lines of "You will have a change at work this week" that could easily "come true" because they're so generic, or
(b) Factual information delivered by a psychic, teleportation-capable guru holding all the knowledge of the world
Although, come to think of it, this was my horoscope today:
"A strain appears in one of your relationships when the theme song to Charles in Charge becomes a bone of contention. Mend the rift with a trip to the art museum (although not on Tuesdays, when it's closed) or a bouquet of Dendrobium kingianum. Also, here are next week's winning lottery numbers: 5, 12, 29, 34, 48 and 7 on the mega ball."
Seriously, what the fuck. This is not what horoscopes are, to say nothing of the fact that most people could not possibly give a shit about horoscopes and anyone who really cares about them isn't going to need to obtain them via text message. Other than that, this service is extremely useful.
I guess I can see where KGB could have its uses, assuming it works properly, but in any normal situation it's no more valuable - and factoring in time concerns, less - than sitting in front of a computer that's hooked up to the internet. All that and these commercials are annoying, stupid, and give just the barest hint of what this service might be good for (unless it really doesn't do any more than these three ads suggest, in which case it's virtually useless). And it has a terrible name that somebody already used. Wait, I've got another one they can use instead: "Red Guards of Knowledge." No?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
This ad stinks
Get it, stinks?
Pepe Le Pew. The most romantic character in all of media. The first thing I think of when I think of Valentine's Day. I mean, right?
Assuming you even remember Pepe Le Pew at all - given that his heyday was in the 1950s, although obviously Warner Brothers cartoons of that era have been fairly ubiquitous over the past half-century - you might remember that he really isn't a romantic character. He's a would-be romantic character, a stalker and borderline sexual predator who holds no attraction to his prospective conquests in all but a couple of cartoons. AT&T takes this even further by giving him dialogue that barely rises above the level of "conversation heart." Is "I MEES U" (would he really misspell words just to match his accent?) the best we can do here? Is that really driving anyone wild with passion? "You miss me? Take me now, you Gallic stud!"
AT&T also seems to be taking pointers from US Cellular.
Voice-over: "Only AT&T lets you connect this Valentine's Day..."
Are all other carriers going into some sort of freeze I don't know about?
Voice-over: "...with the new Samsung Propel."
A phone that can text message? Be still my heart! Anything else distinguishing about it we need to know? No? Okay. Show me some more amorous cartoon cats. Yes, the phone has a sliding QWERTY keyboard, which is shown though not mentioned out loud, but there are plenty of phones these days that offer this feature. Also, if the big deal is that the phone has a QWERTY keyboard, why is Pepe stuck typing the absolute most basic of text messages? "I miss u" might have been the first text message ever sent from a phone. Do you need a QWERTY keyboard for that?
Also, I don't know if you've heard, but Propel is already a product. Have we really run out of words that soon?
Pepe Le Pew. The most romantic character in all of media. The first thing I think of when I think of Valentine's Day. I mean, right?
Assuming you even remember Pepe Le Pew at all - given that his heyday was in the 1950s, although obviously Warner Brothers cartoons of that era have been fairly ubiquitous over the past half-century - you might remember that he really isn't a romantic character. He's a would-be romantic character, a stalker and borderline sexual predator who holds no attraction to his prospective conquests in all but a couple of cartoons. AT&T takes this even further by giving him dialogue that barely rises above the level of "conversation heart." Is "I MEES U" (would he really misspell words just to match his accent?) the best we can do here? Is that really driving anyone wild with passion? "You miss me? Take me now, you Gallic stud!"
AT&T also seems to be taking pointers from US Cellular.
Voice-over: "Only AT&T lets you connect this Valentine's Day..."
Are all other carriers going into some sort of freeze I don't know about?
Voice-over: "...with the new Samsung Propel."
A phone that can text message? Be still my heart! Anything else distinguishing about it we need to know? No? Okay. Show me some more amorous cartoon cats. Yes, the phone has a sliding QWERTY keyboard, which is shown though not mentioned out loud, but there are plenty of phones these days that offer this feature. Also, if the big deal is that the phone has a QWERTY keyboard, why is Pepe stuck typing the absolute most basic of text messages? "I miss u" might have been the first text message ever sent from a phone. Do you need a QWERTY keyboard for that?
Also, I don't know if you've heard, but Propel is already a product. Have we really run out of words that soon?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Super Bored Awards II
In the mid-eighties, the marketing world pulled one of the great snow jobs on the American television audience. They somehow convinced people not to change the channel during Super Bowl commercial breaks. They told us that commercials aren't just 30-second sales pitches, but entertainment, something to look forward to, the "best" "part" "of" the "Super Bowl." It's kind of like how financial services companies somehow convinced us over the last 15 years that our 401(k)s were totally safe, and that the money was not at all entirely fictional and tied up in worthless housing debt. I guess Americans are just suckers for big, faceless corporate bullshit.
Super Bowl commercials, as you should know by now, are poor entertainment. If you watched the Super Bowl for the ads and not for the game, I'm sorry. You should have watched a movie, read a book, spent time with your loved ones - anything else, really. And not only were the commercials not entertaining, many of them didn't even succeed in their actual job of, y'know, selling something. Here, then, are our picks for the worst commercials, by category, of Super Bowl XLIII.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: Coca-Cola
Windier: All right, it's questionable how well this ad really "sells" Coke. But there are only a few companies that can actually get away with making ads almost wholly off-message, and Coke is one of them. It's a nicely-designed ad, the music works well, and the butterflies faking the Coke bottle is priceless. And if just one Coke drinker is educated about the serious risks of insect-related beverage theft, it was worth the millions the ad cost to create and broadcast.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: SoBe Life Water
Quivering: Oh, SoBe. So predictable. You won this coveted award last year, and you did not disappoint in 2009.
If you think you know what's going on in this commercial, you are probably either seven years old, really high, or the person who directed the ad. It starts out with the stale joke of football players doing ballet, then clumsily segues into poorly-animated lizards, then shoehorns in characters from the upcoming Dreamworks movie Monsters vs. Aliens, and then - okay, I have no idea what happens after that, because I was on the floor twitching by then. It's stimulation overload. And totally painful and creepy. Maybe the whole thing paid off if you wore 3-D glasses (for the version that aired last night). Somehow, I doubt that.
(Note from Windier: It did not. And my eyes were on fire by the time it was over.)
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: Vizio
Windier: Man, Vizio TVs must be inexpensive. How else can you explain an ad like this, which screams "We are absolutely blowing our entire budget on the cost of airing the ad, so we need to be able to make it for $7.50 and a box of cookies"? The whole thing looks like it was created in PowerPoint for a shareholders' meeting. Throw in a clunky joke involving the economy and the actual specs of the TV zooming past at light speed and you've got yourself an ad that manages to live up to both aspects of this award. And who chose that moving background? I think I'm going to be sick.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: eTrade
Quivering: This one really chaps my hide. They manipulate you with babies, and then use goofy humor to make light of the economic plight that they helped create.
Baby: "You know, it's times like these that eTrade can really help you replan your investments."
Oh, yeah, sure. Just go open an online trading account and jump right into the stock market! Hey, just because professionals with years of experience and Ivy League MBAs lost a third or more of their wealth in one year doesn't mean you won't come up a big winner! And you may lose a few bucks now and then, or possibly your retirement, savings and house. But so what?! At least those babies were funny, right? (As we all know, tired references to songs that stopped being popular 20 years ago = comedy gold.)
Dishonorable Mention: Doritos
We would be remiss if we did not call out Doritos for some really bad commercials this year. This one in particular was part of the consumer-generated "Crash the Super Bowl" campaign, where people sent in their own Doritos ads. I wish I could say that regular people were better at making ads than many of the hacks who do it for a living, but, well, maybe not. This commercial combines hamfisted acting with cheap crotch-hitting jokes. I'll bet you anything that better ads were submitted, but the Doritos people just wouldn't know a good TV spot if it were hurled at their junk from point-blank range. Hey, I just got an idea for a follow-up commercial!
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: Cash4Gold
Windier: I'll admit that this nonsense is an improvement over the normal Cash4Gold ads, which mostly feature elderly women with facial expressions suggesting that a positive testimonial is the only thing that will get the gun pointed away from their heads. On the other hand, are we sure they aren't doing mostly the same thing here? Hammer and Ed McMahon have both had significant financial troubles in recent years, and while they might be satisfied customers as a result, I'm guessing Cash4Gold was able to use this fact to hire them. Why else would anyone recognizable be caught dead in a Cash4Gold ad? (Negative bonus points for forcing Ed McMahon to deliver a bastardized version of his most famous catchphrase.)
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: GoDaddy.com
Quivering: Danica Patrick wasn't hot last year. And a year of not winning the Indy 500 didn't make her suddenly hotter (or a better actress). The internet domain name purveyor won this award in 2008, and we predicted it again this year based on the spot-on Ad Age description. Let's just say there wasn't an easier bet to be had on Sunday.
Let me try to capture the strategy behind this commercial:
Step 1: Objectify women;
Step 2: Make men look like primates;
Step 3: Use a sports celebrity completely out of context;
Step 4: Sell internet domain names.
Rock solid, don't you think?
Dishonorable Mention: Castrol
Inter-species makeout session alert! Man, I can't believe how hilarious that commercial is, or how much it makes me want to buy motor oil. Right after I finish vomiting.
(Side note to Castrol: Chimpanzees are not monkeys. They are apes.)
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: Pepsi
Quivering: Let me preface this by saying: I get it. I get what Pepsi is doing - the whole "we're appealing to the young, hip demographic before they get too addicted to Coke products" thing. The new billboard/print campaign is interesting, and the logo looks a lot like Obama's campaign logo - I respect what they're trying to do.
But this ad is just an odd way to sell your product, and that's what the SkyMall award is for. First of all, the implication that will.i.am is the heir to Bob Dylan is a little odd. I know he had the Obama song, but let's not rush into this. Let him record a few more seminal albums before we refer to him as the voice of this generation or whatever. Also, it takes a damn long time to get to the point of this ad, or before Pepsi is mentioned. Not sure how a minute-long hodgepodge of random pop culture symbols (VWs, Gumby, Shrek, etc.) sells me on a can of cola, either.
(Addendum from Windier: If the guy whose group was responsible for "My Humps" is the next Dylan, then watch this: "Dip dop a ringy dingy doo!" I'm the next Charles Dickens, motherfuckers.)
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2008
Winner: CareerBuilder
Windier: What makes this ad the worst of its Super Bowl class? What gives it the enduring shittiness to ring through the ages as the most painful example of advertising from a night filled with painful examples of advertising? Why do I hate it so, so much?
First of all, it uses the by-now hackneyed "list" premise, which should have been permanently retired after the classic FedEx spot from a few years ago. More importantly, it combines the list idea with droning, tiresome, and eventually quite painful repetition. How much footage did they even have to shoot for that minute-long ad, 25 seconds' worth? You say economical, I say really fucking annoying. It doesn't help that none of those things are more than vaguely funny. Woman yelling? Not funny. Guy getting called a dummy? Certainly not laugh-out-loud funny, but perhaps slightly amusing. Woman riding a seal? Not funny. (By the way, if you can't make a woman riding a seal look convincing, don't fucking use it in your ad. Do you have any idea how many people are going to see this thing, most of them in high-definition?) Fat guy crying? Not funny. Cheap-looking koala puppet getting punched? Not funny. Gross bald guy in a Speedo? Guess. So if none of those things is funny once, why should any of them be funny by the third or fourth time I'm forced to sit through them? Answer: they're not.
Furthermore, the whole thing is just counterproductive. I don't see how ugly half-naked people sell things, whether used to imply the consequences of not using the item/service being promoted or not. (One of these years I'm going to save up a couple million bucks and buy an ad that's just 30 seconds of a hairy guy in a thong, and at the end he holds up a sign that says "TheAdWizards.com" for four seconds. How many hits do you think this site would get the next day? Negative a jillion?) But even beyond that, if I weren't watching the whole ad because I write for this blog and thus felt compelled to do so, I would have changed the channel before the 30-second mark (not even seeing the Speedo guy), as any sane person should have. And that's 30 whole seconds before we actually find out what company the ad was promoting. Sure, it might have been CareerBuilder, but it might also have been HotJobs, or SimplyHired, or Monster. (Monster actually ran an ad during the game, and it was half as long, to the point, and really not annoying in any way.)
Congratulations, CareerBuilder. When you make an ad this unwatchable and bury your company name in the last three seconds, it's probably time. To hire a new fucking agency.
Super Bowl commercials, as you should know by now, are poor entertainment. If you watched the Super Bowl for the ads and not for the game, I'm sorry. You should have watched a movie, read a book, spent time with your loved ones - anything else, really. And not only were the commercials not entertaining, many of them didn't even succeed in their actual job of, y'know, selling something. Here, then, are our picks for the worst commercials, by category, of Super Bowl XLIII.
The Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Winner: Coca-Cola
Windier: All right, it's questionable how well this ad really "sells" Coke. But there are only a few companies that can actually get away with making ads almost wholly off-message, and Coke is one of them. It's a nicely-designed ad, the music works well, and the butterflies faking the Coke bottle is priceless. And if just one Coke drinker is educated about the serious risks of insect-related beverage theft, it was worth the millions the ad cost to create and broadcast.
Most Overproduced Ad
Winner: SoBe Life Water
Quivering: Oh, SoBe. So predictable. You won this coveted award last year, and you did not disappoint in 2009.
If you think you know what's going on in this commercial, you are probably either seven years old, really high, or the person who directed the ad. It starts out with the stale joke of football players doing ballet, then clumsily segues into poorly-animated lizards, then shoehorns in characters from the upcoming Dreamworks movie Monsters vs. Aliens, and then - okay, I have no idea what happens after that, because I was on the floor twitching by then. It's stimulation overload. And totally painful and creepy. Maybe the whole thing paid off if you wore 3-D glasses (for the version that aired last night). Somehow, I doubt that.
(Note from Windier: It did not. And my eyes were on fire by the time it was over.)
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Winner: Vizio
Windier: Man, Vizio TVs must be inexpensive. How else can you explain an ad like this, which screams "We are absolutely blowing our entire budget on the cost of airing the ad, so we need to be able to make it for $7.50 and a box of cookies"? The whole thing looks like it was created in PowerPoint for a shareholders' meeting. Throw in a clunky joke involving the economy and the actual specs of the TV zooming past at light speed and you've got yourself an ad that manages to live up to both aspects of this award. And who chose that moving background? I think I'm going to be sick.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Winner: eTrade
Quivering: This one really chaps my hide. They manipulate you with babies, and then use goofy humor to make light of the economic plight that they helped create.
Baby: "You know, it's times like these that eTrade can really help you replan your investments."
Oh, yeah, sure. Just go open an online trading account and jump right into the stock market! Hey, just because professionals with years of experience and Ivy League MBAs lost a third or more of their wealth in one year doesn't mean you won't come up a big winner! And you may lose a few bucks now and then, or possibly your retirement, savings and house. But so what?! At least those babies were funny, right? (As we all know, tired references to songs that stopped being popular 20 years ago = comedy gold.)
Dishonorable Mention: Doritos
We would be remiss if we did not call out Doritos for some really bad commercials this year. This one in particular was part of the consumer-generated "Crash the Super Bowl" campaign, where people sent in their own Doritos ads. I wish I could say that regular people were better at making ads than many of the hacks who do it for a living, but, well, maybe not. This commercial combines hamfisted acting with cheap crotch-hitting jokes. I'll bet you anything that better ads were submitted, but the Doritos people just wouldn't know a good TV spot if it were hurled at their junk from point-blank range. Hey, I just got an idea for a follow-up commercial!
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Winner: Cash4Gold
Windier: I'll admit that this nonsense is an improvement over the normal Cash4Gold ads, which mostly feature elderly women with facial expressions suggesting that a positive testimonial is the only thing that will get the gun pointed away from their heads. On the other hand, are we sure they aren't doing mostly the same thing here? Hammer and Ed McMahon have both had significant financial troubles in recent years, and while they might be satisfied customers as a result, I'm guessing Cash4Gold was able to use this fact to hire them. Why else would anyone recognizable be caught dead in a Cash4Gold ad? (Negative bonus points for forcing Ed McMahon to deliver a bastardized version of his most famous catchphrase.)
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Winner: GoDaddy.com
Quivering: Danica Patrick wasn't hot last year. And a year of not winning the Indy 500 didn't make her suddenly hotter (or a better actress). The internet domain name purveyor won this award in 2008, and we predicted it again this year based on the spot-on Ad Age description. Let's just say there wasn't an easier bet to be had on Sunday.
Let me try to capture the strategy behind this commercial:
Step 1: Objectify women;
Step 2: Make men look like primates;
Step 3: Use a sports celebrity completely out of context;
Step 4: Sell internet domain names.
Rock solid, don't you think?
Dishonorable Mention: Castrol
Inter-species makeout session alert! Man, I can't believe how hilarious that commercial is, or how much it makes me want to buy motor oil. Right after I finish vomiting.
(Side note to Castrol: Chimpanzees are not monkeys. They are apes.)
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Winner: Pepsi
Quivering: Let me preface this by saying: I get it. I get what Pepsi is doing - the whole "we're appealing to the young, hip demographic before they get too addicted to Coke products" thing. The new billboard/print campaign is interesting, and the logo looks a lot like Obama's campaign logo - I respect what they're trying to do.
But this ad is just an odd way to sell your product, and that's what the SkyMall award is for. First of all, the implication that will.i.am is the heir to Bob Dylan is a little odd. I know he had the Obama song, but let's not rush into this. Let him record a few more seminal albums before we refer to him as the voice of this generation or whatever. Also, it takes a damn long time to get to the point of this ad, or before Pepsi is mentioned. Not sure how a minute-long hodgepodge of random pop culture symbols (VWs, Gumby, Shrek, etc.) sells me on a can of cola, either.
(Addendum from Windier: If the guy whose group was responsible for "My Humps" is the next Dylan, then watch this: "Dip dop a ringy dingy doo!" I'm the next Charles Dickens, motherfuckers.)
Worst Super Bowl Ad of 2008
Winner: CareerBuilder
Windier: What makes this ad the worst of its Super Bowl class? What gives it the enduring shittiness to ring through the ages as the most painful example of advertising from a night filled with painful examples of advertising? Why do I hate it so, so much?
First of all, it uses the by-now hackneyed "list" premise, which should have been permanently retired after the classic FedEx spot from a few years ago. More importantly, it combines the list idea with droning, tiresome, and eventually quite painful repetition. How much footage did they even have to shoot for that minute-long ad, 25 seconds' worth? You say economical, I say really fucking annoying. It doesn't help that none of those things are more than vaguely funny. Woman yelling? Not funny. Guy getting called a dummy? Certainly not laugh-out-loud funny, but perhaps slightly amusing. Woman riding a seal? Not funny. (By the way, if you can't make a woman riding a seal look convincing, don't fucking use it in your ad. Do you have any idea how many people are going to see this thing, most of them in high-definition?) Fat guy crying? Not funny. Cheap-looking koala puppet getting punched? Not funny. Gross bald guy in a Speedo? Guess. So if none of those things is funny once, why should any of them be funny by the third or fourth time I'm forced to sit through them? Answer: they're not.
Furthermore, the whole thing is just counterproductive. I don't see how ugly half-naked people sell things, whether used to imply the consequences of not using the item/service being promoted or not. (One of these years I'm going to save up a couple million bucks and buy an ad that's just 30 seconds of a hairy guy in a thong, and at the end he holds up a sign that says "TheAdWizards.com" for four seconds. How many hits do you think this site would get the next day? Negative a jillion?) But even beyond that, if I weren't watching the whole ad because I write for this blog and thus felt compelled to do so, I would have changed the channel before the 30-second mark (not even seeing the Speedo guy), as any sane person should have. And that's 30 whole seconds before we actually find out what company the ad was promoting. Sure, it might have been CareerBuilder, but it might also have been HotJobs, or SimplyHired, or Monster. (Monster actually ran an ad during the game, and it was half as long, to the point, and really not annoying in any way.)
Congratulations, CareerBuilder. When you make an ad this unwatchable and bury your company name in the last three seconds, it's probably time. To hire a new fucking agency.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
That never happened, did it
So, US Cellular. You've got a minute long spot to work with. Would you like to say anything about your product? Or do you just want to bury us in annoying quirks and sappy bullshit for 60 seconds?
If you think this is about the seventeenth commercial you've seen in the past year which uses "one person passes on something positive to another" as its premise, you're right. And it's not any less annoyingly utilized here.
[The first 12 seconds of the ad are people riding the bus and escalators without smiling]
God forbid that the commute, probably the least enjoyable part of anyone's day, be spent doing something other than juggling and watching dogs put on a Punch and Judy play. Although I did see an ostrich doing chin-ups at the bus stop the other day and I almost cracked a smile. But then I didn't because I have Sprint.
[Quirky string-plucking indicates a lightening of mood. This one dude gets a call and smiles, and the world smiles with him for some reason.]
You know what usually perks me up when I'm in a bad mood? Watching some jackass smile unrealistically broadly while making his public phone call. Fuck this guy.
[Then there is a Royal Scots guard playing the drums at a stop light, which makes sense, and then a fucking building smiles using its window shades.]
Announcer: "Who says the world isn't a pretty great place?"
What kind of terrifying nightmare scenario are we living in where it's considered great for entire buildings to come to life and grin at me?
Announcer: "Maybe those people just need to look a little closer."
The things that I see, looking closely at this commercial: some douche riding a bike and pretending it has a steering wheel (I'd suggest a helmet, by the way); a couple of annoying dipshits turning 360 degrees in the middle of the sidewalk; an entire crowd of people giving peace signs and touching hands on the escalator. I assure you that none of these things would make me think, "What a great world I live in!" They would probably make me think, "Oh, did I forget that they started the 'One City, One Mescaline' program today?"
Announcer: "Because if you really look, you'll see a place that is good and kind."
The kind of good, kind place where little kids walk the city streets dressed like teddy bears, chaperoned only by slightly older kids in rainbow socks. Seriously, who dropped acid before filming this?
Announcer: "A place where a smile can change everything."
Right.
[Some asshole dances on an unfinished bridge.]
Hooray! What a wonderful, adorable, cutesy-poo world we live in! I smiled and some fucker I don't care about danced on a bridge. Big fucking shit, US Cellular.
Announcer: "That's why we do more than just connect calls... we believe in connecting people."
Verizon will only let you buy one of their phones if you can prove you're a cyborg. Alltel is working on exclusively cornering the ungulate market. Sprint recently acquired ShellPhones, the mobile service designed for hermit crabs.
Announcer: "US Cellular. Believe in something better."
"When you use our phones, your calls are transported on a pillow of rainbows to a cell tower made of red rope licorice, and a unicorn switchboard operator sends them down the Yellow Brick Road to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, where they're shot out of an ice cream cannon by a leprechaun and a fairy princess, directly into your friend's ear."
Honestly. A minute of tiresome quirks to make the point that your phones... are phones? Are you fucking kidding? Not one word about service, or plans, or calling area, or signal strength, or anything other than this fake, mawkish tripe.
"US Cellular: Believe in annoying, undifferentiating bullshit."
If you think this is about the seventeenth commercial you've seen in the past year which uses "one person passes on something positive to another" as its premise, you're right. And it's not any less annoyingly utilized here.
[The first 12 seconds of the ad are people riding the bus and escalators without smiling]
God forbid that the commute, probably the least enjoyable part of anyone's day, be spent doing something other than juggling and watching dogs put on a Punch and Judy play. Although I did see an ostrich doing chin-ups at the bus stop the other day and I almost cracked a smile. But then I didn't because I have Sprint.
[Quirky string-plucking indicates a lightening of mood. This one dude gets a call and smiles, and the world smiles with him for some reason.]
You know what usually perks me up when I'm in a bad mood? Watching some jackass smile unrealistically broadly while making his public phone call. Fuck this guy.
[Then there is a Royal Scots guard playing the drums at a stop light, which makes sense, and then a fucking building smiles using its window shades.]
Announcer: "Who says the world isn't a pretty great place?"
What kind of terrifying nightmare scenario are we living in where it's considered great for entire buildings to come to life and grin at me?
Announcer: "Maybe those people just need to look a little closer."
The things that I see, looking closely at this commercial: some douche riding a bike and pretending it has a steering wheel (I'd suggest a helmet, by the way); a couple of annoying dipshits turning 360 degrees in the middle of the sidewalk; an entire crowd of people giving peace signs and touching hands on the escalator. I assure you that none of these things would make me think, "What a great world I live in!" They would probably make me think, "Oh, did I forget that they started the 'One City, One Mescaline' program today?"
Announcer: "Because if you really look, you'll see a place that is good and kind."
The kind of good, kind place where little kids walk the city streets dressed like teddy bears, chaperoned only by slightly older kids in rainbow socks. Seriously, who dropped acid before filming this?
Announcer: "A place where a smile can change everything."
Right.
[Some asshole dances on an unfinished bridge.]
Hooray! What a wonderful, adorable, cutesy-poo world we live in! I smiled and some fucker I don't care about danced on a bridge. Big fucking shit, US Cellular.
Announcer: "That's why we do more than just connect calls... we believe in connecting people."
Verizon will only let you buy one of their phones if you can prove you're a cyborg. Alltel is working on exclusively cornering the ungulate market. Sprint recently acquired ShellPhones, the mobile service designed for hermit crabs.
Announcer: "US Cellular. Believe in something better."
"When you use our phones, your calls are transported on a pillow of rainbows to a cell tower made of red rope licorice, and a unicorn switchboard operator sends them down the Yellow Brick Road to the Big Rock Candy Mountain, where they're shot out of an ice cream cannon by a leprechaun and a fairy princess, directly into your friend's ear."
Honestly. A minute of tiresome quirks to make the point that your phones... are phones? Are you fucking kidding? Not one word about service, or plans, or calling area, or signal strength, or anything other than this fake, mawkish tripe.
"US Cellular: Believe in annoying, undifferentiating bullshit."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Flame on
We're a little behind on this one, but I didn't realize until just now that there was actually an ad for this monstrosity.
You see this, you think "joke." Everyone did. And yet the fragrance was apparently real, so say columns in the LA Times and Daily Mirror. A body spray that smells like hamburgers. Truly we are living in a ridiculous time.
And yet the existence of the body spray itself is not what creeps me out, at least not when compared to this ad. If I made a list of Advertising Spokespeople I Least Wanted to See Shirtless, it would look something like this:
5. Wilford Brimley for Quaker Oats and/or diabetes prevention
4. The Burger King
3. Chef Boyardee
2. Any of the Raisin Bran Crunch guys
1. Clara Peller
The ad itself could be worse. Burger King clearly wants the viewer to guess whether or not this is a joke, and really the fragrance seems to have been so hard to find that it might as well have been a joke for most people. On that level I think it works. But shirtless King? Please don't ever do that again.
You see this, you think "joke." Everyone did. And yet the fragrance was apparently real, so say columns in the LA Times and Daily Mirror. A body spray that smells like hamburgers. Truly we are living in a ridiculous time.
And yet the existence of the body spray itself is not what creeps me out, at least not when compared to this ad. If I made a list of Advertising Spokespeople I Least Wanted to See Shirtless, it would look something like this:
5. Wilford Brimley for Quaker Oats and/or diabetes prevention
4. The Burger King
3. Chef Boyardee
2. Any of the Raisin Bran Crunch guys
1. Clara Peller
The ad itself could be worse. Burger King clearly wants the viewer to guess whether or not this is a joke, and really the fragrance seems to have been so hard to find that it might as well have been a joke for most people. On that level I think it works. But shirtless King? Please don't ever do that again.
Monday, January 26, 2009
A Dew in the ointment
Hey. Mountain Dew. What have we said about not putting disgusting shit in ads for food products?
Okay, Mountain Dew is sort of gross on its own terms, but it's still something the public is expected to consume. It's not some sort of industrial solvent. So maybe going with the huge nasty splash of bug guts, I don't know, wasn't the way to get us all excited to drink your soda?
But what kills me about this commercial is the bizarre coda, in which Mountain Dew suddenly gets all defensive about their stupid ad:
Announcer [reading onscreen text]: "Drinking Mountain Dew Voltage will not actually electrify you. This was simply a metaphor, an admittedly weak metaphor, to suggest it is intense. We hope you enjoyed it but fully understand if you did not."
You know, if you have to apologize for the commercial you just ran, maybe you should have come up with another idea. Was there a pitch meeting where someone tossed out the bug guts idea, and half the room loved it but half the room thought it would be too gross? So then someone, the Henry Clay of advertising, stands up. "Gentlemen," he says, "I propose that we show the bug guts. But!" (Here he raises his voice slightly and holds up his hand to quiet the throng of anti-guts admen who have already begun to grumble their objections.) "But... I suggest that at the end, we admit that it was a shitty ad."
The admen look around at each other, unsure how to react.
"That's right," Henry says. "I understand that it goes against your every instinct, that it flies in the face of everything you've learned in your career. But we can have it both ways. We can get the laughs of the 15-year-old kids who think bug guts are hilarious. And we can also get grudging acceptance from the people who think that shit is nasty, by admitting that we know the ad we've just shown them was kind of terrible."
A wave of muttered acceptance sweeps the room. A triumphant smile crosses Henry's face.
***
That's the pre-credits sequence of the screenplay I'm writing, tentatively entitled The Voltage Spot. The rest of the film is 90 minutes of me finding out who green-lighted this shit, going to their houses and punching them in the junk.
Okay, Mountain Dew is sort of gross on its own terms, but it's still something the public is expected to consume. It's not some sort of industrial solvent. So maybe going with the huge nasty splash of bug guts, I don't know, wasn't the way to get us all excited to drink your soda?
But what kills me about this commercial is the bizarre coda, in which Mountain Dew suddenly gets all defensive about their stupid ad:
Announcer [reading onscreen text]: "Drinking Mountain Dew Voltage will not actually electrify you. This was simply a metaphor, an admittedly weak metaphor, to suggest it is intense. We hope you enjoyed it but fully understand if you did not."
You know, if you have to apologize for the commercial you just ran, maybe you should have come up with another idea. Was there a pitch meeting where someone tossed out the bug guts idea, and half the room loved it but half the room thought it would be too gross? So then someone, the Henry Clay of advertising, stands up. "Gentlemen," he says, "I propose that we show the bug guts. But!" (Here he raises his voice slightly and holds up his hand to quiet the throng of anti-guts admen who have already begun to grumble their objections.) "But... I suggest that at the end, we admit that it was a shitty ad."
The admen look around at each other, unsure how to react.
"That's right," Henry says. "I understand that it goes against your every instinct, that it flies in the face of everything you've learned in your career. But we can have it both ways. We can get the laughs of the 15-year-old kids who think bug guts are hilarious. And we can also get grudging acceptance from the people who think that shit is nasty, by admitting that we know the ad we've just shown them was kind of terrible."
A wave of muttered acceptance sweeps the room. A triumphant smile crosses Henry's face.
***
That's the pre-credits sequence of the screenplay I'm writing, tentatively entitled The Voltage Spot. The rest of the film is 90 minutes of me finding out who green-lighted this shit, going to their houses and punching them in the junk.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
2009 Super Bored Awards Preview
Super Bowl XLIII is coming up next week, and excitement's in the air. Football fans in Arizona are giddy with anticipation, Steelers fans are confident their team is going to continue its postseason success, and, most importantly, eager fans of corporate advertising are gearing up for the single biggest day in all of marketing. So we continue with our tradition of handing out our Ad Wizards Super Bored Awards to those commercials that instantly earn a place here in Ad Wizards history.
After Sunday's game, we'll be writing up our reactions to the Super Bowl commercials and handing out the awards. Here's a rundown of the 8 categories, and our picks for possible "winners":
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Explanation: Pretty self-explanatory, really. There are dozens of ads on TV each day that could win this award, but during the Super Bowl, when the stakes are raised, having a painfully unfunny ad really goes to another level of shittiness.
Prediction: It would be easy to call this one for Anheuser-Busch; we handed it to Bud Light last year and beer ads do tend to suck. But that seems like the coward's way out. Doritos is another possibility because they actually let the general public submit ads, but I'm leaning towards CareerBuilder, as its ad apparently features "a koala bear and a co-worker in a Speedo." You're already doubled over laughing, right?
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Explanation: Observe. Carlos Mencia fell off the map so rapidly, the joke in the name of this award is practically nonsense. Suffice it to say, this baby goes to the ad that shoe-horns in the silliest, biggest waste-of-money celebrity endorsement.
Prediction: AdAge doesn't list many celebrity appearances in this year's crop of ads, but I bet someone will surprise us. For now, we have to go with Coke Zero's tie-in with Troy Polamalu. Sure, he's a Steeler, and Pittsburgh is playing in the Super Bowl this year, but I reject the fact that he's that recognizable. Another consideration is that the Coke Zero spot will be produced by my personal favorite advertising agency, Crispin Porter + Bogusky.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Explanation: Some people out there think sex can sell anything. These people are called "hacks," and they control a vast amount of advertising. This award goes out to the most inappropriately-placed sex appeal, the most nonsensical naked lady, or the least intuitive pairing of a product with T&A (read: food & sex). If the past is any indication, there will be plenty of qualifying ads to choose from for this award.
Prediction: GoDaddy.com was the winner last year with its laughable "Danica Patrick unzips her jacket and almost shows her boobs" spot. We see no reason to predict any other company this year, because Danica Patrick is back, and she's even less relevant. Here's the 2009 :30 spot description: "'Shower,' the current front-runner, features Patrick in a shower with another woman as three college students control the women's movements from a computer keyboard."
What about seeing a not-that-hot race car driver in the shower makes me want to purchase a domain name for my web site?
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Explanation: Again, fairly self-explanatory. Last year this went to SalesGenie, which allowed its CEO to write its ads and then used the worst-looking animation you've ever seen to get them on the air.
Prediction: As we mentioned earlier, Doritos is airing an ad that was created by the public; unless they have some ringers in there, the budget for this was probably about zero. Certainly a contender. If that's too easy, look to Teleflora, a flowers-delivery service that probably had to hold a bake sale just to raise the money to buy a 30-second spot.
After Sunday's game, we'll be writing up our reactions to the Super Bowl commercials and handing out the awards. Here's a rundown of the 8 categories, and our picks for possible "winners":
Apple 1984 Memorial Award for Least Shitty Ad
Explanation: Why "Least Shitty" and not "Best" ad? Check out the descriptions of this year's spots, and tell me which of those commercials sound like something you'd want to watch. Exactly.
Prediction: I know I've ragged on car commercials a lot over the past year and a half, but Hyundai's spot with Yo-Yo Ma playing a classical piece on his cello sounds safe enough. Their new Assurance Program which "allows new-vehicle buyers or leasees to return cars for up to a year after purchase if they lose their income due to a job loss" sounds like a cool and relevant promotion. Predicting this award is all about choosing the least of many evils.
Explanation: Why "Least Shitty" and not "Best" ad? Check out the descriptions of this year's spots, and tell me which of those commercials sound like something you'd want to watch. Exactly.
Prediction: I know I've ragged on car commercials a lot over the past year and a half, but Hyundai's spot with Yo-Yo Ma playing a classical piece on his cello sounds safe enough. Their new Assurance Program which "allows new-vehicle buyers or leasees to return cars for up to a year after purchase if they lose their income due to a job loss" sounds like a cool and relevant promotion. Predicting this award is all about choosing the least of many evils.
Most Overproduced Ad
Explanation: Super Bowl ads are expensive. Unfortunately, the way some companies respond to this is by going for a case of stimulus overload, throwing everything at the wall and seeing if something will stick in the public consciousness. Last year this award went to Sobe Life Water and their horrible dancing lizards ad, which attempted to combine Naomi Campbell (?), mediocre CGI, and several of the most pointless jokes you've ever seen into gold. Shockingly, it didn't work.
Prediction: Audi has brought in The Transporter's Jason Statham to do, well, exactly what he does in The Transporter - run around trying to get away from bad guys by driving a luxury car. Since I know this is a problem a lot of us have in real life, I'm sure this spot will resonate. What's that? He also flees bad guys through different eras? Well, I hope there are some hilarious wigs involved.
Explanation: Super Bowl ads are expensive. Unfortunately, the way some companies respond to this is by going for a case of stimulus overload, throwing everything at the wall and seeing if something will stick in the public consciousness. Last year this award went to Sobe Life Water and their horrible dancing lizards ad, which attempted to combine Naomi Campbell (?), mediocre CGI, and several of the most pointless jokes you've ever seen into gold. Shockingly, it didn't work.
Prediction: Audi has brought in The Transporter's Jason Statham to do, well, exactly what he does in The Transporter - run around trying to get away from bad guys by driving a luxury car. Since I know this is a problem a lot of us have in real life, I'm sure this spot will resonate. What's that? He also flees bad guys through different eras? Well, I hope there are some hilarious wigs involved.
Worst Use of "Humor" Award
Prediction: It would be easy to call this one for Anheuser-Busch; we handed it to Bud Light last year and beer ads do tend to suck. But that seems like the coward's way out. Doritos is another possibility because they actually let the general public submit ads, but I'm leaning towards CareerBuilder, as its ad apparently features "a koala bear and a co-worker in a Speedo." You're already doubled over laughing, right?
The Carlos Mencia Book Prize for Most Egregious Use of B-List Celebrities
Explanation: Observe. Carlos Mencia fell off the map so rapidly, the joke in the name of this award is practically nonsense. Suffice it to say, this baby goes to the ad that shoe-horns in the silliest, biggest waste-of-money celebrity endorsement.
Prediction: AdAge doesn't list many celebrity appearances in this year's crop of ads, but I bet someone will surprise us. For now, we have to go with Coke Zero's tie-in with Troy Polamalu. Sure, he's a Steeler, and Pittsburgh is playing in the Super Bowl this year, but I reject the fact that he's that recognizable. Another consideration is that the Coke Zero spot will be produced by my personal favorite advertising agency, Crispin Porter + Bogusky.
Flimsiest Pretense Award
Explanation: Some people out there think sex can sell anything. These people are called "hacks," and they control a vast amount of advertising. This award goes out to the most inappropriately-placed sex appeal, the most nonsensical naked lady, or the least intuitive pairing of a product with T&A (read: food & sex). If the past is any indication, there will be plenty of qualifying ads to choose from for this award.
Prediction: GoDaddy.com was the winner last year with its laughable "Danica Patrick unzips her jacket and almost shows her boobs" spot. We see no reason to predict any other company this year, because Danica Patrick is back, and she's even less relevant. Here's the 2009 :30 spot description: "'Shower,' the current front-runner, features Patrick in a shower with another woman as three college students control the women's movements from a computer keyboard."
What about seeing a not-that-hot race car driver in the shower makes me want to purchase a domain name for my web site?
Cheapest Budget/Clumsiest Execution Award
Explanation: Again, fairly self-explanatory. Last year this went to SalesGenie, which allowed its CEO to write its ads and then used the worst-looking animation you've ever seen to get them on the air.
Prediction: As we mentioned earlier, Doritos is airing an ad that was created by the public; unless they have some ringers in there, the budget for this was probably about zero. Certainly a contender. If that's too easy, look to Teleflora, a flowers-delivery service that probably had to hold a bake sale just to raise the money to buy a 30-second spot.
SkyMall Championship Trophy
Explanation: This award goes to the "worst overall attempt to sell a product," referring not so much to how bad the ad is as to how bad the specific pitch is. Last year this went to Planters for advertising its cashews by using an ugly woman's cleavage.
Prediction: Well, that depends. Is eTrade going to show a baby throwing up again? If their "sneak peek outtakes" video is anything to go by, the eTrade pitch is going to focus on babies puking, swearing, or doing inappropriately sexual things. I started five online trading accounts in the 30 seconds since I watched that ad because of the obvious connection. Or I didn't, because what the fuck.
The GoDaddy.com/SalesGenie.com/Bud Light/Miller Lite/Emerald Nuts Award for Worst Superbowl Ad
Explanation: The worst ad shall embody the qualities of tastelessness, stupidity, over-production, boorishness and the overall indecipherability that become the very worst commercials. This should be the kind of advertisement that, upon viewing, makes you never want to purchase the product. The kind of commerical that is so shockingly bad it reduces sales, gets the CMO fired, and generally annoys America until it's pulled from the airwaves.
Prediction: SoBe and their freaky lizard commercial won last year. And once again we're going to pick the same company to get our award. The AdAge blurb mentions a couple of important points about this year's SoBe commercial:
- It features the "popular" (?) SoBe lizards
- It will be 60 seconds of torture
- It will show both NFL stars and characters from the DreamWorks movie "Monsters vs. Aliens"
- The theme will be the ballet Swan Lake
- It has "Rhythmic Effects"
You've been warned. If you're going to attempt to watch the game, have a steady finger on that Mute button, keep a blindfold nearby, and place a cyanide tablet near you just in case everything backfires and you end up watching all 60 seconds of this commercial. Don't worry, we have your best interests in mind.
***
Last year the worst of the worst (outside of the Sobe spot) just didn't seem that egregrious. With the descriptions for 2009, you can't help but think we'll get some stand out offerings from advertisers this year. We may be in a recession, but that ain't stopping advertisers from putting on a really big, and really over-produced, show.
Explanation: This award goes to the "worst overall attempt to sell a product," referring not so much to how bad the ad is as to how bad the specific pitch is. Last year this went to Planters for advertising its cashews by using an ugly woman's cleavage.
Prediction: Well, that depends. Is eTrade going to show a baby throwing up again? If their "sneak peek outtakes" video is anything to go by, the eTrade pitch is going to focus on babies puking, swearing, or doing inappropriately sexual things. I started five online trading accounts in the 30 seconds since I watched that ad because of the obvious connection. Or I didn't, because what the fuck.
The GoDaddy.com/SalesGeni
Explanation: The worst ad shall embody the qualities of tastelessness, stupidity, over-production, boorishness and the overall indecipherability that become the very worst commercials. This should be the kind of advertisement that, upon viewing, makes you never want to purchase the product. The kind of commerical that is so shockingly bad it reduces sales, gets the CMO fired, and generally annoys America until it's pulled from the airwaves.
Prediction: SoBe and their freaky lizard commercial won last year. And once again we're going to pick the same company to get our award. The AdAge blurb mentions a couple of important points about this year's SoBe commercial:
- It features the "popular" (?) SoBe lizards
- It will be 60 seconds of torture
- It will show both NFL stars and characters from the DreamWorks movie "Monsters vs. Aliens"
- The theme will be the ballet Swan Lake
- It has "Rhythmic Effects"
You've been warned. If you're going to attempt to watch the game, have a steady finger on that Mute button, keep a blindfold nearby, and place a cyanide tablet near you just in case everything backfires and you end up watching all 60 seconds of this commercial. Don't worry, we have your best interests in mind.
***
Last year the worst of the worst (outside of the Sobe spot) just didn't seem that egregrious. With the descriptions for 2009, you can't help but think we'll get some stand out offerings from advertisers this year. We may be in a recession, but that ain't stopping advertisers from putting on a really big, and really over-produced, show.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
It's Pizza Hut's world, we just live in it
Have you eaten food recently? Was that food vaguely Italian? Be warned: you might have accidentally appeared in the next Pizza Hut commercial.
This is at least the second in Pizza Hut's series of ads in which they trick people into eating their food, the first being this one. Does the premise of this ad seem a little strange to you? That premise being "Our pizza was nasty and artificial, but now it's like, natural. Which means it's good." Doesn't this kind of make you feel bad for ever having ordered from Pizza Hut? "Jesus, did I really consume that disgusting shit?" I mean, "Now you're eating?" Only now am I eating? So, what was I doing the last time I had Pizza Hut? I guess I wasn't eating. I still know what I was doing three hours later, though.
Does "all-natural" pepperoni and sauce really constitute a "totally new way" to make pizza, by the way? It's not like the cheese is made from yak's milk or the pizza baked in a clay oven for six hours. It's pizza, but you made the sauce with like two different ingredients. I think that's worth some sort of Dateline exposé.
This is at least the second in Pizza Hut's series of ads in which they trick people into eating their food, the first being this one. Does the premise of this ad seem a little strange to you? That premise being "Our pizza was nasty and artificial, but now it's like, natural. Which means it's good." Doesn't this kind of make you feel bad for ever having ordered from Pizza Hut? "Jesus, did I really consume that disgusting shit?" I mean, "Now you're eating?" Only now am I eating? So, what was I doing the last time I had Pizza Hut? I guess I wasn't eating. I still know what I was doing three hours later, though.
Does "all-natural" pepperoni and sauce really constitute a "totally new way" to make pizza, by the way? It's not like the cheese is made from yak's milk or the pizza baked in a clay oven for six hours. It's pizza, but you made the sauce with like two different ingredients. I think that's worth some sort of Dateline exposé.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Whopper Virgins deflowered
About a month ago I posted about Burger King's new Whopper Virgins campaign. They were airing a teaser commercial that showed how they traveled to remote places (Thailand countryside, Greenland, Romania, etc.) and asked locals who have never eaten a burger whether they preferred a Whopper or a McDonald's Big Mac. Unsurprisingly, the initial spots incited unease and even anger -- which is what tends to happen when you use poor, isolated peoples as guinea pigs for your fast food products and then put them in your commercials rather than, you know, helping them not starve to death.
So the new ads are way toned down. Here's one example:
Announcer: This woman is a Whopper virgin.
The commercial I really wanted wasn't on YouTube, but it shows a Transylvanian farmer donning an amusing traditional outfit and tiny hat, and the voiceover asks him, "Was it good for you?" Ahh, unnecessary sexuality shoe-horned into a commercial for food. That could only be the hackish work of... Crispin Porter + Bogusky! (To summarize my feelings on that agency, just know that the authors of this site are probably not going to get jobs over there any time soon.)
At least there's no outright, creepy sexuality in this spot -- aside from calling a middle-aged Inuit woman a virgin of some kind.
She's never eaten a burger.
That reminds me. I need someone who doesn't know how to read to tell me if they like this blog or not. I'll publish the results at the top of the page next week.
Will she prefer the Whopper or the Big Mac?
The tension is killing me, Burger King! Just tell me, already, which burger did she like?! Will it possibly be the one you're promoting in this commercial?!?!!!?1111!?
Inuit Woman's translation: "I like this one."
Announcer: It appears she's got a taste for flame-broiled beef.
Well, that settles that! One out of one Inuit people who have no concept of burgers prefers the Whopper! Uh, McDonald's? Might as well close those 14,000 stores, my friends. You've been discredited.... all thanks to the crack research team over at Crispin Porter + Bogusky!
Of course all this didn't stop Crispin Porter from being voted agency of the year by Adweek. In their defense, yes, they won a ton of business this year -- including that huge Microsoft account with the confounding Bill Gates spot. On the other hand, give me a fucking break. Here's an exceprt from that article:
With the Gates-Seinfeld spots coming and going in a flash, it was widely assumed Microsoft pulled them early, in a tacit admission they had flopped. Not the case, says Rob Reilly, Crispin's co-ecd, who, along with co-chairman Alex Bogusky, led the creative pitch for the estimated $300 million Windows assignment in late 2007.
"The point of the Bill and Jerry stuff was to get people thinking about Microsoft in a different way," says Reilly. "So, when 'I'm a PC' came, you were ready for something different. It was always designed to be two weeks. It did exactly what it was supposed to do."
I'm sorry, what? You guys gave Seinfeld ten million dollars, remember? You wanted to pay him ten million just to use him in two commercials? And the result was "exactly" what it was supposed to be? Fuck off.
There's just so much bullshit with the attention whores at CP+B, and no one ever calls their work what it is -- vapid noise. Here's what they do for your brand -- they get publicity, at the expense of everything your brand stands for. Take that Whopper Virgins campaign -- loads of press. But was it good press? There simply is such a thing as bad publicity, especially when you're trying to sell products. Even the response from the normally sympathetic BK audience was tepid -- those commercials on YouTube were getting like 2.5 and 3 stars on average. With the grade inflation on YouTube that's like getting an F. I even saw one comment (not from me, I promise), that said "I'm done with Burger King."
Once again I have to ask -- when will marketers in America end their regrettable love affair with Crispin Porter?
So the new ads are way toned down. Here's one example:
Announcer: This woman is a Whopper virgin.
The commercial I really wanted wasn't on YouTube, but it shows a Transylvanian farmer donning an amusing traditional outfit and tiny hat, and the voiceover asks him, "Was it good for you?" Ahh, unnecessary sexuality shoe-horned into a commercial for food. That could only be the hackish work of... Crispin Porter + Bogusky! (To summarize my feelings on that agency, just know that the authors of this site are probably not going to get jobs over there any time soon.)
At least there's no outright, creepy sexuality in this spot -- aside from calling a middle-aged Inuit woman a virgin of some kind.
She's never eaten a burger.
That reminds me. I need someone who doesn't know how to read to tell me if they like this blog or not. I'll publish the results at the top of the page next week.
Will she prefer the Whopper or the Big Mac?
The tension is killing me, Burger King! Just tell me, already, which burger did she like?! Will it possibly be the one you're promoting in this commercial?!?!!!?1111!?
Inuit Woman's translation: "I like this one."
Announcer: It appears she's got a taste for flame-broiled beef.
Well, that settles that! One out of one Inuit people who have no concept of burgers prefers the Whopper! Uh, McDonald's? Might as well close those 14,000 stores, my friends. You've been discredited.... all thanks to the crack research team over at Crispin Porter + Bogusky!
Of course all this didn't stop Crispin Porter from being voted agency of the year by Adweek. In their defense, yes, they won a ton of business this year -- including that huge Microsoft account with the confounding Bill Gates spot. On the other hand, give me a fucking break. Here's an exceprt from that article:
With the Gates-Seinfeld spots coming and going in a flash, it was widely assumed Microsoft pulled them early, in a tacit admission they had flopped. Not the case, says Rob Reilly, Crispin's co-ecd, who, along with co-chairman Alex Bogusky, led the creative pitch for the estimated $300 million Windows assignment in late 2007.
"The point of the Bill and Jerry stuff was to get people thinking about Microsoft in a different way," says Reilly. "So, when 'I'm a PC' came, you were ready for something different. It was always designed to be two weeks. It did exactly what it was supposed to do."
I'm sorry, what? You guys gave Seinfeld ten million dollars, remember? You wanted to pay him ten million just to use him in two commercials? And the result was "exactly" what it was supposed to be? Fuck off.
There's just so much bullshit with the attention whores at CP+B, and no one ever calls their work what it is -- vapid noise. Here's what they do for your brand -- they get publicity, at the expense of everything your brand stands for. Take that Whopper Virgins campaign -- loads of press. But was it good press? There simply is such a thing as bad publicity, especially when you're trying to sell products. Even the response from the normally sympathetic BK audience was tepid -- those commercials on YouTube were getting like 2.5 and 3 stars on average. With the grade inflation on YouTube that's like getting an F. I even saw one comment (not from me, I promise), that said "I'm done with Burger King."
Once again I have to ask -- when will marketers in America end their regrettable love affair with Crispin Porter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)