I'm not even sure what to say.
An anonymous commenter a few posts ago was the first to bring this to my attention, although frankly I would have been just as happy to go the rest of my life without knowing this commercial existed.
We've talked in the past about how commercials dealing with "gross" subjects tend to be somewhat circumspect, with my go-to example being the Metamucil "Beautify your inside" campaign from 2007. This commercial... is the opposite of that.
We open on some sort of shitting contest. I mean, that's actually what is happening here. Three babies are involved in a contest to see who can fill their diaper with the most shit. For real. That is the ad. So the first one goes, and gets scores of 6, 5 and 3. Whoa! Not nearly enough shit in that diaper, Baby #1! You knew this was the World Shitting Championships, right? Step your game up.
Baby #2 steps up and drops a much larger shit - while being recorded on cell phone cameras in the front row - and gets scores of 8, 7 and 8. But Baby #3... he came prepared. His diaper expands with shit until it is nearly as big as he is! Yeahhhhh! All 10s! He is the Nadia Comaneci of shitting!
Voice-over: "What happens in diapers should stay in diapers."
This now presents us with the alternate mental image of some non-Luvs-clad baby taking a monster dump the size of his own body and having excrement fly everywhere. Thanks, Luvs.
Voice-over: "New Luvs Ultra Leakguards with Heavy 'Dooty' Blowout Protection. Outstanding protection for your little 'heavy dooty' champs."
Have you ever seen "dooty" spelled that way before? I have not. Meanwhile, the second and third-place babies are for some reason putting their hands on the winner's still-full diaper, like they're in awe of his shitting prowess and want a little reflected glory. This is really exceedingly vile.
I know this ad is directed at parents. And I know that for the majority of parents, your kid taking a crap and you having to clean it up becomes so commonplace that it ceases to be disgusting; it's just a thing that happens that has to be dealt with, one of the things you sign up for when you decide to have children. (And if you glance over the YouTube comments, it's pretty clear there's an opinion divide between parents and the childless over the merits of the spot.) But even with that in mind, did this commercial really need to be this graphic? These are cartoon babies, after all - you're not actually proving the durability of the diapers by showing the massive shit expansion, so why show it at all? And did you really have to play "Whoomp! There it is!" in the background?
This is the place where I'd normally do some joke about what it would be like if other companies advertised this way. But how can I? There really is no analogous situation to watching a baby (even an animated one) fill its diaper onscreen - only a handful of other products even deal in an area this nasty, and none of them would ever advertise so directly. The only commercial I can think of that's even vaguely similar is the one for Oops, I Crapped My Pants, and that's a joke ad for a product that doesn't exist. So congratulations, Luvs, for being only slightly less gross than a fake ad that's intentionally over the top about its pitch.
You know, as long as we're talking about diapers, I just realized I never dealt with this one:
Eurotrash Voiceover: "My diaper is full! Full of chic!"
Ha ha! It's funny, because "chic" sounds kind of like "shit," which of course is what the diaper is actually full of.
Eurotrash Voiceover: "When it's a #2... I look like #1."
Diaper companies really just don't care, do they? Metamucil talks about primping your colon, but Huggies is just like, "Yeah, whatever! Babies shit all the time, and we all know it. We're not dancing around anything."
Eurotrash Voiceover: "I poo... in blue!"
Good God. Couldn't you try to be even a little cute about what diapers are for? I mean, we all know anyway. It really has to be shoved in our face like this? For good measure, the tagline is "The coolest you'll look pooping your pants." I love the use of the second person as though anyone truly capable of watching and understand this commercial is going to be the one using the product, as opposed to buying it for their child. (By the way: jean diapers? Seriously? This was something that needed to exist? Were there really people complaining that boring ol' white diapers were making their baby look dangerously uncool?)
I know this whole thing is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but I mean, no, it really isn't. You make that product and sell it, you can't really claim ironic license. This is something you want to sell. And again, okay, the people you're trying to sell to probably won't be fazed by all the talk about babies taking craps. But couldn't you think for a second about the non-parents out there, the people who were just hoping to watch television without being confronted with the image of someone taking a dump? We're people too, dammit.
Attention parents: babies are cute. (Most babies.) But they are not as cute to the rest of us as you think they are. And not everything they do is cute just because they're babies. Taking their first steps? Cute. Babbling happily? Cute. Filling a diaper with shit? NOT CUTE. There's a reason why bathroom stalls have doors on them - no one wants to see someone else taking a shit. I don't care how tiny and precious you are, I'm not interested in being informed about what just came out of your ass or where it's now residing. So maybe we could sell diapers without having to talk about how constantly full of shit they are? Is that possible?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
"Steamer" is right
Quick! Can you identify the product or service that Stanley Steemer provides?
It's kind of a trick question. According to their website, they actually provide a variety of home cleaning and repair services. They'll clean your carpet, your tile, your furniture, your air ducts... they do water damage restoration, sell flooring, clean the interior of your car, boat or RV... there are really quite a lot of services that Stanley Steemer provides.
Unless you learned about Stanley Steemer only from watching this ad:
In which case, Stanley Steemer is a company that cleans up animal shit.
It's kind of a trick question. According to their website, they actually provide a variety of home cleaning and repair services. They'll clean your carpet, your tile, your furniture, your air ducts... they do water damage restoration, sell flooring, clean the interior of your car, boat or RV... there are really quite a lot of services that Stanley Steemer provides.
Unless you learned about Stanley Steemer only from watching this ad:
In which case, Stanley Steemer is a company that cleans up animal shit.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Awful insurance ad blowout
Something very strange is going on in the insurance industry lately. For an example of what I mean, let's take a look at a Farmer's Insurance ad from about two years ago:
I mean, okay, it's sort of boring. It's straightforward, it maybe gets a little too much into financial jargon... but ultimately the main point is clear and sincere. Farmer's has been around for a long time, we don't play games with your coverage, etc.
Now here's a Farmer's ad from their most recent vintage:
What in the hell is happening here? Can you make hide or hair of it? Because I cannot. The commercial implies that you can buy insurance to cover your accident after the fact, which I'm almost positive is sort of the opposite of how insurance works. Then there's all the goofy details in the ad - "bait shop," "tulip poplar," that dopey singing at the end - which all just scream "Look at us! We are modern and hilarious!" Sure, it's a less boring ad than its older counterpart, but at what cost? We're talking about insurance here, not light beer or candy. Does it need to be sold with this kind of a pitch?
But it's not just Farmer's. Oh, not by a long shot. You'll remember, of course, the awful State Farm ads which started some months ago (and were taken on by this blog right here) and are still running. But that's hardly it.
That's a Nationwide ad from about four years ago. It's already in the "trying to be funny" range, as all those "Life comes at you fast" ads were - remember the Kevin Federline one? - but in a pretty clear, innocuous way. Not so anymore.
Is the point of this commercial to make me want to die? Because it does. Ooh, maybe before I walk into traffic I can buy some life insurance from Nationwide! I mean Nationpam. That's just funny right there.
What is this obsessive need to have a goofy character gimmick? "The World's Greatest Spokesperson in the World?" First of all, that's a pretty direct ripoff of like ten other things. Even if it weren't, it is not inherently funny, and that guy's over-the-top smarminess is not drawing me towards Nationwide. This particular iteration of the gimmick is even worse because it isn't really saying anything - while other ads in the series at least talk about services that Nationwide offers, like "vanishing deductible," this ad just takes on online insurance companies with a vague, unsupportable promise that Nationwide won't treat you like a number. And then the guy sings obnoxiously in a way that suggests that Nationwide, like State Farm before them, has fallen hopelessly in love with their own jingle.
Even Esurance - a sufficiently nouveau company that you might just have expected this kind of ad from them in the first place - has gone from the relatively direct Erin Esurance animated ads to, well, this:
Esurance is apparently trying to skirt the kind of attack Nationwide was directing at their ilk by pointing out that you can have "Technology when you want it, people when you don't." But for some reason they have to do this by inventing an obnoxious agent who insists on being known as "The Saver" and a series of not-much-less obnoxious coworkers who like to point out that you save exactly as much money by just using the Esurance website. It's like the insurance equivalent of those "Cash/credit same price" signs you see at gas stations, except much more aggravating. The only thing I really take from these Esurance ads is that the Esurance offices look like a really annoying place to work.
Progressive, meanwhile, has been running the same Flo ads for a couple years now, so I can't accuse them of a very recent lurch into painful gimmickry. I can, however, point out that the commercials are getting harder and harder to watch.
I kind of like the way she says "Still not sure," but I hate the rest of it SO MUCH that it really doesn't matter because I almost never see that part anymore. Why is this supposed to be funny? Because some old guy is saying silly words? This tells us nothing about Progressive that we haven't learned from 85 other spots of theirs, so that suggests to me that this one was created because someone specifically thought this guy's lines were hilarious. Guess what? They were wrong. And I'd say that maybe the ad was trying to market to old people except it's kind of making fun of them, so I'm not sure how well that would work.
There are other insurance companies I haven't touched on. Allstate's "Mayhem" ads are more sober than most of the ones above, even as they milk a specific gimmick for all it's worth. Geico is still running goofy ads that barely mention their product half the time, but it's Geico - if you're expecting anything else from them, come on. 21st Century Insurance has been running ads that very directly, with just a smidge of humor, point out how you can get the exact same coverage as other companies but for a good deal less.
As I said above... we're talking about insurance here. Why are we suddenly seeing nearly every company go in for the same inane pitch - or in many cases lack thereof - that characterizes most beer commercials? It could be that Geico's recent expansion has encouraged other companies to try and follow their style, but don't you think that Geico's rates and/or service really have at least as much to do with it as the gecko or the cavemen? Geico also advertises a lot and will have multiple campaigns running at once - currently they have at least two, the gecko and the rhetorical questions, running nationally. I feel like if you do that, it almost doesn't matter what your ads look like. And wouldn't it make more sense to pitch in a clearer, more sensible way? Are we really so far down the rabbit hole that even the most adult-oriented, non-impulse-buy product like insurance has to try to have ads that teenagers will laugh at?
I mean, when you want insurance, I'm sure you want to save money, but you also want it from a reputable source, right? Do most of these ads reassure you about the quality of coverage you'd be getting? No, and that's rarely even the focus, which I find insane. The Farmer's and State Farm ones both present you with an utterly warped and inaccurate picture of how insurance works; the rest rarely have much to say beyond "We're less expensive!" The bizarre thing is that it's not really that hard to focus on both cost and features, is it? Think about the average McDonald's ad, say. You might see an ad where they talk about how a hamburger is only 99 cents, but in that same ad they will likely also promote something else about the hamburger, like its taste. Now think about the Progressive ad, which implies a low price but spends too much time having an old guy bark out nonsense to really address anything related to the actual insurance.
Isn't this ironic? Insurance, of all things, seems like a product where I would not want to make my decision just on cost. If my choice is between a McDonald's and a Burger King hamburger, I can feel pretty safe just going with the cheaper one (assuming my goal is saving money). If my choice is between two insurance companies, I might want to take a closer look at the fine print, no? This is kind of a big decision - if I ever do get into an accident, don't I want to know what kind of coverage I have? Instead, when it comes to their commercials, most of the insurance companies want to distract you with shiny things as part of a grating race to the bottom.
I mean, okay, it's sort of boring. It's straightforward, it maybe gets a little too much into financial jargon... but ultimately the main point is clear and sincere. Farmer's has been around for a long time, we don't play games with your coverage, etc.
Now here's a Farmer's ad from their most recent vintage:
What in the hell is happening here? Can you make hide or hair of it? Because I cannot. The commercial implies that you can buy insurance to cover your accident after the fact, which I'm almost positive is sort of the opposite of how insurance works. Then there's all the goofy details in the ad - "bait shop," "tulip poplar," that dopey singing at the end - which all just scream "Look at us! We are modern and hilarious!" Sure, it's a less boring ad than its older counterpart, but at what cost? We're talking about insurance here, not light beer or candy. Does it need to be sold with this kind of a pitch?
But it's not just Farmer's. Oh, not by a long shot. You'll remember, of course, the awful State Farm ads which started some months ago (and were taken on by this blog right here) and are still running. But that's hardly it.
That's a Nationwide ad from about four years ago. It's already in the "trying to be funny" range, as all those "Life comes at you fast" ads were - remember the Kevin Federline one? - but in a pretty clear, innocuous way. Not so anymore.
Is the point of this commercial to make me want to die? Because it does. Ooh, maybe before I walk into traffic I can buy some life insurance from Nationwide! I mean Nationpam. That's just funny right there.
What is this obsessive need to have a goofy character gimmick? "The World's Greatest Spokesperson in the World?" First of all, that's a pretty direct ripoff of like ten other things. Even if it weren't, it is not inherently funny, and that guy's over-the-top smarminess is not drawing me towards Nationwide. This particular iteration of the gimmick is even worse because it isn't really saying anything - while other ads in the series at least talk about services that Nationwide offers, like "vanishing deductible," this ad just takes on online insurance companies with a vague, unsupportable promise that Nationwide won't treat you like a number. And then the guy sings obnoxiously in a way that suggests that Nationwide, like State Farm before them, has fallen hopelessly in love with their own jingle.
Even Esurance - a sufficiently nouveau company that you might just have expected this kind of ad from them in the first place - has gone from the relatively direct Erin Esurance animated ads to, well, this:
Esurance is apparently trying to skirt the kind of attack Nationwide was directing at their ilk by pointing out that you can have "Technology when you want it, people when you don't." But for some reason they have to do this by inventing an obnoxious agent who insists on being known as "The Saver" and a series of not-much-less obnoxious coworkers who like to point out that you save exactly as much money by just using the Esurance website. It's like the insurance equivalent of those "Cash/credit same price" signs you see at gas stations, except much more aggravating. The only thing I really take from these Esurance ads is that the Esurance offices look like a really annoying place to work.
Progressive, meanwhile, has been running the same Flo ads for a couple years now, so I can't accuse them of a very recent lurch into painful gimmickry. I can, however, point out that the commercials are getting harder and harder to watch.
I kind of like the way she says "Still not sure," but I hate the rest of it SO MUCH that it really doesn't matter because I almost never see that part anymore. Why is this supposed to be funny? Because some old guy is saying silly words? This tells us nothing about Progressive that we haven't learned from 85 other spots of theirs, so that suggests to me that this one was created because someone specifically thought this guy's lines were hilarious. Guess what? They were wrong. And I'd say that maybe the ad was trying to market to old people except it's kind of making fun of them, so I'm not sure how well that would work.
There are other insurance companies I haven't touched on. Allstate's "Mayhem" ads are more sober than most of the ones above, even as they milk a specific gimmick for all it's worth. Geico is still running goofy ads that barely mention their product half the time, but it's Geico - if you're expecting anything else from them, come on. 21st Century Insurance has been running ads that very directly, with just a smidge of humor, point out how you can get the exact same coverage as other companies but for a good deal less.
As I said above... we're talking about insurance here. Why are we suddenly seeing nearly every company go in for the same inane pitch - or in many cases lack thereof - that characterizes most beer commercials? It could be that Geico's recent expansion has encouraged other companies to try and follow their style, but don't you think that Geico's rates and/or service really have at least as much to do with it as the gecko or the cavemen? Geico also advertises a lot and will have multiple campaigns running at once - currently they have at least two, the gecko and the rhetorical questions, running nationally. I feel like if you do that, it almost doesn't matter what your ads look like. And wouldn't it make more sense to pitch in a clearer, more sensible way? Are we really so far down the rabbit hole that even the most adult-oriented, non-impulse-buy product like insurance has to try to have ads that teenagers will laugh at?
I mean, when you want insurance, I'm sure you want to save money, but you also want it from a reputable source, right? Do most of these ads reassure you about the quality of coverage you'd be getting? No, and that's rarely even the focus, which I find insane. The Farmer's and State Farm ones both present you with an utterly warped and inaccurate picture of how insurance works; the rest rarely have much to say beyond "We're less expensive!" The bizarre thing is that it's not really that hard to focus on both cost and features, is it? Think about the average McDonald's ad, say. You might see an ad where they talk about how a hamburger is only 99 cents, but in that same ad they will likely also promote something else about the hamburger, like its taste. Now think about the Progressive ad, which implies a low price but spends too much time having an old guy bark out nonsense to really address anything related to the actual insurance.
Isn't this ironic? Insurance, of all things, seems like a product where I would not want to make my decision just on cost. If my choice is between a McDonald's and a Burger King hamburger, I can feel pretty safe just going with the cheaper one (assuming my goal is saving money). If my choice is between two insurance companies, I might want to take a closer look at the fine print, no? This is kind of a big decision - if I ever do get into an accident, don't I want to know what kind of coverage I have? Instead, when it comes to their commercials, most of the insurance companies want to distract you with shiny things as part of a grating race to the bottom.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tax season in Bizarro World
Does this sort of sales tactic happen on a routine basis? I guess it must, since H&R Block has built a whole series of television and radio commercials around it.
At the point of the "reveal" that the salesman was lying, I'm feeling confused, and also kind of irritated, uncomfortable and embarrassed on behalf of the customers. (I know they're most likely actors, but the commercial is setting us up as if they are actual customers, and thus those are the sort of emotions being pulled up for me as a member of the audience.) When I feel embarrassed, I don't want to hang around for whatever the sales pitch is going to be- I just want to get away from that commercial as quickly as possible. If this blog didn't exist, I wouldn't even have bothered to find out who actually made the commercial.
In the first commercial, we're told that it would be insane to give away the company's best stuff for free. In the second commercial, it's implied that the customer is stupid for falling for the pitch in the first place. So which message do you prefer- that your customers are stupid for believing that there is such a thing as a free lunch, or that your company is crazy for offering a free lunch in the first place?
In neither commercial is it explained what the purpose would be of using such a bait-and-switch tactic in the first place, although the writers seem aware that customers would not like it, as the radio version of the second ad ends with the annoyed customer asking "Is this your idea of a joke?", to which the salesman flatly replies "Yes. Yes it is. Ha ha." How could you possibly salvage a sale after this opening? "Anyway, the bike's really $2,000. But you love it, right? So you still want it, right? Right? Where are you going?" In essence, H&R Block is setting itself up in contrast ("we're serious") to fantasy stores and salespersons who would never behave this way- at least, not if they wanted to actually sell anything.
Salesman: This is one of the best cameras we have in stock. It has phenomenal optics- here, hold that. Super sharp images, and you can have it for free.
Announcer: Imagine if you could get the best for free.
Customer: (laughs) Sounds too good to be true.
Salesman: Yeah, it is too good to be true. That would be insane. To give our best stuff away for free?
Announcer: At H&R Block, we're serious. We believe you deserve the best tax preparation available for free.
At the point of the "reveal" that the salesman was lying, I'm feeling confused, and also kind of irritated, uncomfortable and embarrassed on behalf of the customers. (I know they're most likely actors, but the commercial is setting us up as if they are actual customers, and thus those are the sort of emotions being pulled up for me as a member of the audience.) When I feel embarrassed, I don't want to hang around for whatever the sales pitch is going to be- I just want to get away from that commercial as quickly as possible. If this blog didn't exist, I wouldn't even have bothered to find out who actually made the commercial.
Salesman: How's it going?
Customer: Good, how are you?
Salesman: Good. Have you seen this? This is the best bike we have. Top spec gears, super light frame.
Customer: I love it.
Salesman: Right now, you can have it for free.
Customer: Shut up.
Salesman: Free! Yeah!
Announcer: Imagine if you could get the best for free.
Customer: Oh this is, oh my god. This is mine?
Salesman: (Shakes head) No.
Customer: Shut up.
Salesman: I can't just give away my best stuff for free.
In the first commercial, we're told that it would be insane to give away the company's best stuff for free. In the second commercial, it's implied that the customer is stupid for falling for the pitch in the first place. So which message do you prefer- that your customers are stupid for believing that there is such a thing as a free lunch, or that your company is crazy for offering a free lunch in the first place?
In neither commercial is it explained what the purpose would be of using such a bait-and-switch tactic in the first place, although the writers seem aware that customers would not like it, as the radio version of the second ad ends with the annoyed customer asking "Is this your idea of a joke?", to which the salesman flatly replies "Yes. Yes it is. Ha ha." How could you possibly salvage a sale after this opening? "Anyway, the bike's really $2,000. But you love it, right? So you still want it, right? Right? Where are you going?" In essence, H&R Block is setting itself up in contrast ("we're serious") to fantasy stores and salespersons who would never behave this way- at least, not if they wanted to actually sell anything.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Mixed messages
In the time we've been doing this blog, Microsoft hasn't exactly been heavily on our radar, but they have had a couple of appearances thanks to ridiculous hyperbole and utter insanity. It's been more than two years since that last one, so we hoped that maybe they'd learned their lesson. Well... not entirely. Take a look at these two ads and tell me what Microsoft is actually trying to sell.
First things first: on its face, I actually like this ad a lot. It's funny (because it's true!), it's visually appealing, the music cue works perfectly. The message, however, is confusing if not entirely self-defeating. I'll turn things over for a minute to our own Knitwear M. Groundhog:
"It's based on a flawed premise. They're saying that the reason people waste time on their phones is because it takes too long to do things. In fact, people waste time on their phones because they enjoy doing things on their phone, so if you make it so that you can do that stuff faster, they're actually going to do MORE of it."
Indeed. As well-put-together as this commercial is, it can't hide the fact that its central conceit really does not make a lick of sense. The people shown in the commercial appear to be engrossed in their phones, not because they have slow download speeds or something but because they like going on Facebook, sending texts, playing games, whatever. "Saving people from their phones" hardly seems like a good marketing strategy when it's not clear that anyone is crying out to be saved from their phones. (Also, the guy on the phone while his wife - I assume - stands there in lingerie? That would never happen, ever.)
But wait! Does Microsoft want to get you off the phone and back to life? Or... don't they?
The basic concept of this ad is just idiotic. My girlfriend can't tell I'm playing X-Box Live? Uh, you're sitting there, staring at your phone, and moving it back and forth. She can tell you're playing X-Box Live. And even if she couldn't, she could certainly tell that you are doing nothing but staring at your phone. I'm going to ignore the whole avatar/"sexy dance" segment of this ad because it's stupid and also besides the point.
The point being this: which is it, Microsoft? Are your phones supposed to "get us in and out and back to life?" Or are they supposed to enable us to play video games literally anywhere, a development which the first ad certainly seemed to be raging against? One possibility, I suppose, is that Microsoft ran all those "Really?" ads and then people pointed out to them that the central idea of the ads was stupid and unproductive, so they decided to shift to "Uh, wait! So you want to stare at your phone incessantly no matter what we say? Well, then stare at our phones incessantly! We've got X-Box..."
Of course, once you've already suggested that everyone in the world is a phone zombie who should buy your phone so they won't be staring at it all the time, it's kind of hard to turn around and tout the features that will make them want to stare at it all the time. Would you ever see a car ad that made a big deal about how the car will get you from point A to point B quickly so you can just go about your day? No, you wouldn't. Making a commercial implying that your product should be used as little as possible is pretty much the essence of counterproductivity. It's easy to see why Microsoft shifted gears; unfortunately for them, we'd all already seen the initial ads.
First things first: on its face, I actually like this ad a lot. It's funny (because it's true!), it's visually appealing, the music cue works perfectly. The message, however, is confusing if not entirely self-defeating. I'll turn things over for a minute to our own Knitwear M. Groundhog:
"It's based on a flawed premise. They're saying that the reason people waste time on their phones is because it takes too long to do things. In fact, people waste time on their phones because they enjoy doing things on their phone, so if you make it so that you can do that stuff faster, they're actually going to do MORE of it."
Indeed. As well-put-together as this commercial is, it can't hide the fact that its central conceit really does not make a lick of sense. The people shown in the commercial appear to be engrossed in their phones, not because they have slow download speeds or something but because they like going on Facebook, sending texts, playing games, whatever. "Saving people from their phones" hardly seems like a good marketing strategy when it's not clear that anyone is crying out to be saved from their phones. (Also, the guy on the phone while his wife - I assume - stands there in lingerie? That would never happen, ever.)
But wait! Does Microsoft want to get you off the phone and back to life? Or... don't they?
The basic concept of this ad is just idiotic. My girlfriend can't tell I'm playing X-Box Live? Uh, you're sitting there, staring at your phone, and moving it back and forth. She can tell you're playing X-Box Live. And even if she couldn't, she could certainly tell that you are doing nothing but staring at your phone. I'm going to ignore the whole avatar/"sexy dance" segment of this ad because it's stupid and also besides the point.
The point being this: which is it, Microsoft? Are your phones supposed to "get us in and out and back to life?" Or are they supposed to enable us to play video games literally anywhere, a development which the first ad certainly seemed to be raging against? One possibility, I suppose, is that Microsoft ran all those "Really?" ads and then people pointed out to them that the central idea of the ads was stupid and unproductive, so they decided to shift to "Uh, wait! So you want to stare at your phone incessantly no matter what we say? Well, then stare at our phones incessantly! We've got X-Box..."
Of course, once you've already suggested that everyone in the world is a phone zombie who should buy your phone so they won't be staring at it all the time, it's kind of hard to turn around and tout the features that will make them want to stare at it all the time. Would you ever see a car ad that made a big deal about how the car will get you from point A to point B quickly so you can just go about your day? No, you wouldn't. Making a commercial implying that your product should be used as little as possible is pretty much the essence of counterproductivity. It's easy to see why Microsoft shifted gears; unfortunately for them, we'd all already seen the initial ads.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
It's the cost that counts
So you want the most expensive thing in the store and your parents won't buy it for you. Instead, they offer you a lower-cost option that is pretty similar. What does this make them? That's right: inconsiderate assholes.
[Kid admiring undoubtedly expensive electric train set]
Mom: "How about this one? It's almost the same thing."
Kid: [insufferably] "No. It's not."
Fuck this kid, am I right? Your parents aren't obligated to buy you anything, you ungrateful little bastard.
Dad: "This one's great! It's just as good as the one you wanted."
Kid: "No... it's not."
This just makes me feel really bad for the dad. Listen to how he sells that first line. The mom seemed kind of noncommittal - "Eh, this other one seems okay, right?" - but the dad sounds legitimately invested in the quality of the guitar he's holding, and Flock of Seagulls just shits all over him. How much do you suppose that kid even knows about guitars? "Uh, hello, Dad? This guitar looks cooler and is five times more expensive, therefore it's better."
Guy: "That's the one."
Salesman: "Great choice."
Voiceover: "Don't settle for a copy when you can have the original."
If you can afford it, sure. I'm fairly certain that if Seagulls' dad was swimming in cash he'd have been happy to buy his obnoxious son whatever expensive guitar he wanted - so clearly he wasn't, meaning what we have is this douchebag kid griping every year because his middle-class parents can't and/or won't cater to his every whim. Great message, BMW. Hey, did your parents buy you exactly what you wanted for Christmas every year, no matter the price point? They didn't? Well, fuck them - treat yourself with a $40,000 luxury car this Christmas! Can you afford that? Who the fuck cares? You're an adult now and you don't settle for copies, whatever that means. Also, your kids eat cookies and ice cream for dinner and stay up as late as they want, because you're just the kind of guy who follows through on all the whiny shit he said as a ten-year-old when he didn't get his way.
[Kid admiring undoubtedly expensive electric train set]
Mom: "How about this one? It's almost the same thing."
Kid: [insufferably] "No. It's not."
Fuck this kid, am I right? Your parents aren't obligated to buy you anything, you ungrateful little bastard.
Dad: "This one's great! It's just as good as the one you wanted."
Kid: "No... it's not."
This just makes me feel really bad for the dad. Listen to how he sells that first line. The mom seemed kind of noncommittal - "Eh, this other one seems okay, right?" - but the dad sounds legitimately invested in the quality of the guitar he's holding, and Flock of Seagulls just shits all over him. How much do you suppose that kid even knows about guitars? "Uh, hello, Dad? This guitar looks cooler and is five times more expensive, therefore it's better."
Guy: "That's the one."
Salesman: "Great choice."
Voiceover: "Don't settle for a copy when you can have the original."
If you can afford it, sure. I'm fairly certain that if Seagulls' dad was swimming in cash he'd have been happy to buy his obnoxious son whatever expensive guitar he wanted - so clearly he wasn't, meaning what we have is this douchebag kid griping every year because his middle-class parents can't and/or won't cater to his every whim. Great message, BMW. Hey, did your parents buy you exactly what you wanted for Christmas every year, no matter the price point? They didn't? Well, fuck them - treat yourself with a $40,000 luxury car this Christmas! Can you afford that? Who the fuck cares? You're an adult now and you don't settle for copies, whatever that means. Also, your kids eat cookies and ice cream for dinner and stay up as late as they want, because you're just the kind of guy who follows through on all the whiny shit he said as a ten-year-old when he didn't get his way.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Prince Charmin
There are various reasons why there hasn't been a post here for a while, and I won't bore you with explanations or excuses. But suffice it to say there haven't been a lot of really noteworthy ads to skewer lately, or at least not much to say about the really hateable ones. (We can't stand those Hyundai ads with the insufferable indie band, but how much can you say about that? They're just impossible to sit through.)
Well, leave it to the Charmin bears to bring us out of hibernation.
This commercial opens by implying that the Charmin bears are about to have sex. Sadly, that's the least distasteful thing about it.
[Charmin bear reaches for a square of toilet paper]
Announcer: "When you have a softer bath tissue, you can enjoy going more!"
I assume she means you can enjoy (going) more, but it's funnier to think that she means you can enjoy (going more). "Oh, this bath tissue is so soft, I just can't wait to get back in the bathroom for my next dump! Bring me all the baked beans in the land!"
Announcer: "While still using less."
Then apparently you can snuggle up against the leftover paper because it's just that goddamn soft. Come on, Charmin. It's still paper - I'm not wiping my ass with a silk handkerchief here.
Next it's the typical demonstration of how absorbent the paper is, which is always secretly the most disgusting part of any toilet paper commercial when you think about what it's going to be "absorbing." These commercials probably pass the old Metamucil commercial for "most ridiculous dancing around a subject that no one wants to hear about in a TV commercial, even if it is something everyone does."
Announcer: "Using less never felt so good!"
On the inside of your ass!
Announcer: "New Charmin Ultra Soft: Enjoy the Go."
"Enjoy the Go????" That is so unbelievably gross. Look, Charmin. It's nice that you want to make ass-wiping a more pleasant experience. But enjoy the go? Enjoy it? What the fuck is your problem? Bowel movements are a fact of life, not something that can be turned into an entertaining experience by the addition of a softer toilet paper. If you could make some deal where solid waste would just vanish from your body so you'd never have to take a shit again, wouldn't you do it? Wouldn't most people? Meanwhile, here are the Charmin bears, treating softer toilet paper like it's a fucking free weekend at Disney World. Of course, I suppose it's not as ridiculous as some of the slogans they rejected:
Charmin Ultra Soft: How Sweet It Is
Charmin Ultra Soft: Oh Thank Heaven
Charmin Ultra Soft: Let's Get It On (Your Butt)
Charmin Ultra Soft: And Flights of Angels Sing Thee to Thy Flush
Well, leave it to the Charmin bears to bring us out of hibernation.
This commercial opens by implying that the Charmin bears are about to have sex. Sadly, that's the least distasteful thing about it.
[Charmin bear reaches for a square of toilet paper]
Announcer: "When you have a softer bath tissue, you can enjoy going more!"
I assume she means you can enjoy (going) more, but it's funnier to think that she means you can enjoy (going more). "Oh, this bath tissue is so soft, I just can't wait to get back in the bathroom for my next dump! Bring me all the baked beans in the land!"
Announcer: "While still using less."
Then apparently you can snuggle up against the leftover paper because it's just that goddamn soft. Come on, Charmin. It's still paper - I'm not wiping my ass with a silk handkerchief here.
Next it's the typical demonstration of how absorbent the paper is, which is always secretly the most disgusting part of any toilet paper commercial when you think about what it's going to be "absorbing." These commercials probably pass the old Metamucil commercial for "most ridiculous dancing around a subject that no one wants to hear about in a TV commercial, even if it is something everyone does."
Announcer: "Using less never felt so good!"
On the inside of your ass!
Announcer: "New Charmin Ultra Soft: Enjoy the Go."
"Enjoy the Go????" That is so unbelievably gross. Look, Charmin. It's nice that you want to make ass-wiping a more pleasant experience. But enjoy the go? Enjoy it? What the fuck is your problem? Bowel movements are a fact of life, not something that can be turned into an entertaining experience by the addition of a softer toilet paper. If you could make some deal where solid waste would just vanish from your body so you'd never have to take a shit again, wouldn't you do it? Wouldn't most people? Meanwhile, here are the Charmin bears, treating softer toilet paper like it's a fucking free weekend at Disney World. Of course, I suppose it's not as ridiculous as some of the slogans they rejected:
Charmin Ultra Soft: How Sweet It Is
Charmin Ultra Soft: Oh Thank Heaven
Charmin Ultra Soft: Let's Get It On (Your Butt)
Charmin Ultra Soft: And Flights of Angels Sing Thee to Thy Flush
Monday, October 25, 2010
If you can't take the heat, stay out of Miami
I don't want to get too sports-heavy here, but anyone who follows basketball probably has an opinion on the LeBron James saga. Regardless of what you think about his decision to leave Cleveland for Miami, and what you think about the subsequent fan reaction to it, I think we can probably all admit that this was not the best response.
I'm sure LeBron felt stung by the reaction he got upon leaving Cleveland. He no doubt felt that he had done all he could there - in 2007, he dragged the team to a spot in the Finals almost singlehandedly, and won 60+ games in each of the last two years with improved but hardly championship-caliber teammates.
But this ad just comes off as whiny and petulant. LeBron recently gave a statement in which he said that he could understand why Cleveland fans were upset - that's good, if months late. But really this, this post I'm making, isn't about what he's said in the media. It's about this ad, in particular, lest we get off-topic here. And this ad is stupid.
It's stupid for the same reason the Charles Barkley ad that James quotes - the "I am not a role model" one - was also kind of stupid. While I appreciate Barkley's point on some levels, the fact is that he's appearing in a commercial when he says it. He's a paid endorser of a product. And the whole point of paying an athlete to endorse your product is to trade on said athlete's fame and, yes, their position as a role model to sell that product. Barkley may genuinely not have wanted to be a role model, but Nike made him one anyway.
And the same thing is happening here. James, via Nike, was marketed as little short of the Second Coming in Cleveland. Don't believe me?
Yikes. To be fair, that ad doesn't actually mention Cleveland, but you get the point. You can see the huge size of the "We are all witnesses" banner that falls in the ad at the top. James was pitched as nothing less than the savior of basketball in Cleveland. And so when he left - when he decided, perhaps, that basketball in Cleveland was beyond saving, that he'd given it his best shot but now that he had more of a choice he was happy to go play in a nicer city with some friends of his on a better team, thanks - he was vilified by people who felt betrayed.
Should they have felt betrayed by LeBron? Maybe, maybe not. But this ad trades on mocking and/or complaining about that sense of betrayal, and it's a betrayal that was stoked by Nike itself.
Not a role model? Uh, hardly. This ad portrays James as the ultimate role model, one capable of affecting the entire population with his behavior.
"Should I be who you want me to be?" James asks, with more than a hint of sarcasm, in the latest ad. The obvious answer is no; LeBron James, like anyone else, can be whoever he wants to be. But as a man whose job, even as he speaks those words, is to pitch sneakers to teenagers... well, the answer is kind of yes. If you want to be a multimillionaire pitchman, you have to put on a face that the public will appreciate. It comes with the territory. LeBron James the basketball star and LeBron James the Nike spokesman are not separate entities. LeBron James the Nike spokesman is most definitely a role model - or anyway, he is in the eyes of Nike, because if he weren't he would be of no value to them. And if LeBron James the Nike spokesman is a role model, LeBron James the basketball star is a role model. And if he wants both of those personas to exist, fully functioning, as beloved as they are capable of being and not loathed by a spurned fanbase... well, then, yes, LeBron. You have to be who we want you to be.
And if you don't want to be? That's cool too. Just don't run back to Nike to make an ad about how none of it is your fault. I don't think you're going to sell too many shoes that way.
I'm sure LeBron felt stung by the reaction he got upon leaving Cleveland. He no doubt felt that he had done all he could there - in 2007, he dragged the team to a spot in the Finals almost singlehandedly, and won 60+ games in each of the last two years with improved but hardly championship-caliber teammates.
But this ad just comes off as whiny and petulant. LeBron recently gave a statement in which he said that he could understand why Cleveland fans were upset - that's good, if months late. But really this, this post I'm making, isn't about what he's said in the media. It's about this ad, in particular, lest we get off-topic here. And this ad is stupid.
It's stupid for the same reason the Charles Barkley ad that James quotes - the "I am not a role model" one - was also kind of stupid. While I appreciate Barkley's point on some levels, the fact is that he's appearing in a commercial when he says it. He's a paid endorser of a product. And the whole point of paying an athlete to endorse your product is to trade on said athlete's fame and, yes, their position as a role model to sell that product. Barkley may genuinely not have wanted to be a role model, but Nike made him one anyway.
And the same thing is happening here. James, via Nike, was marketed as little short of the Second Coming in Cleveland. Don't believe me?
Yikes. To be fair, that ad doesn't actually mention Cleveland, but you get the point. You can see the huge size of the "We are all witnesses" banner that falls in the ad at the top. James was pitched as nothing less than the savior of basketball in Cleveland. And so when he left - when he decided, perhaps, that basketball in Cleveland was beyond saving, that he'd given it his best shot but now that he had more of a choice he was happy to go play in a nicer city with some friends of his on a better team, thanks - he was vilified by people who felt betrayed.
Should they have felt betrayed by LeBron? Maybe, maybe not. But this ad trades on mocking and/or complaining about that sense of betrayal, and it's a betrayal that was stoked by Nike itself.
Not a role model? Uh, hardly. This ad portrays James as the ultimate role model, one capable of affecting the entire population with his behavior.
"Should I be who you want me to be?" James asks, with more than a hint of sarcasm, in the latest ad. The obvious answer is no; LeBron James, like anyone else, can be whoever he wants to be. But as a man whose job, even as he speaks those words, is to pitch sneakers to teenagers... well, the answer is kind of yes. If you want to be a multimillionaire pitchman, you have to put on a face that the public will appreciate. It comes with the territory. LeBron James the basketball star and LeBron James the Nike spokesman are not separate entities. LeBron James the Nike spokesman is most definitely a role model - or anyway, he is in the eyes of Nike, because if he weren't he would be of no value to them. And if LeBron James the Nike spokesman is a role model, LeBron James the basketball star is a role model. And if he wants both of those personas to exist, fully functioning, as beloved as they are capable of being and not loathed by a spurned fanbase... well, then, yes, LeBron. You have to be who we want you to be.
And if you don't want to be? That's cool too. Just don't run back to Nike to make an ad about how none of it is your fault. I don't think you're going to sell too many shoes that way.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Fake-us group
I've been waiting for someone to explain to me how this commercial could possibly be real. Maybe one of you has an idea?
Woman: "Domino's doesn't want me to know what's in their ingredients."
Man: "'Cause it's probably not real cheese."
I find this a weird complaint, in the setup. On what grounds is she claiming that Domino's doesn't want her to know what's in their ingredients? Did she call her local Domino's once to ask for a list and they told her to fuck off?
Focus Group Leader: "Well, I've got a surprise for you."
[the walls pull away to reveal that they're in the middle of a field]
Woman 2: "Oh my God!"
Leader: "This is just one of the dairies that makes the milk to make real Domino's cheese."
Okay. So, it claims at the bottom of the screen that this was an "actual focus group." I just have one question.
WHAT?????????
I guess there are some subsidiary questions within that one. How could these people possibly have failed to realize that they were in a tiny shack sitting on the grounds of a dairy farm? How did Domino's get them there without this being in any way revealed? Blanchardville, Wisconsin is pretty much in the middle of nowhere. Either these people were from the area - in which case it is particularly incredible that they would not have realized they were on a dairy farm - or they were like bussed in from Madison, the nearest city of any real size, and also should probably have found something at least a little off about a major corporation holding a focus group in the middle of farm country.
But let's say, for the hell of it, that this focus group was going on without any of the participants realizing where they were... why were they out there in the first place? How did Domino's know that the legitimacy of their cheese was going to be called into question in this focus group? Was one of the people speaking a plant? This goes back to that initial comment by the woman that Domino's doesn't want her to know what the ingredients are. What? Where did she come up with that? It's almost like that's something she was... I don't know, told to say?
Lest Domino's get any ideas about some ad where I'm watching TV calling their focus group fake, and then they have all the members of the focus group walk into my living room and introduce themselves to prove they're real people, I'm not necessarily saying that this ad was faked. But I am saying, for sure, that if you wanted to make an ad that looked fake, that was supposedly real but was so insanely convenient that it had the whiff of contrivance all over it... well, you couldn't do much better than this.
Woman: "Domino's doesn't want me to know what's in their ingredients."
Man: "'Cause it's probably not real cheese."
I find this a weird complaint, in the setup. On what grounds is she claiming that Domino's doesn't want her to know what's in their ingredients? Did she call her local Domino's once to ask for a list and they told her to fuck off?
Focus Group Leader: "Well, I've got a surprise for you."
[the walls pull away to reveal that they're in the middle of a field]
Woman 2: "Oh my God!"
Leader: "This is just one of the dairies that makes the milk to make real Domino's cheese."
Okay. So, it claims at the bottom of the screen that this was an "actual focus group." I just have one question.
WHAT?????????
I guess there are some subsidiary questions within that one. How could these people possibly have failed to realize that they were in a tiny shack sitting on the grounds of a dairy farm? How did Domino's get them there without this being in any way revealed? Blanchardville, Wisconsin is pretty much in the middle of nowhere. Either these people were from the area - in which case it is particularly incredible that they would not have realized they were on a dairy farm - or they were like bussed in from Madison, the nearest city of any real size, and also should probably have found something at least a little off about a major corporation holding a focus group in the middle of farm country.
But let's say, for the hell of it, that this focus group was going on without any of the participants realizing where they were... why were they out there in the first place? How did Domino's know that the legitimacy of their cheese was going to be called into question in this focus group? Was one of the people speaking a plant? This goes back to that initial comment by the woman that Domino's doesn't want her to know what the ingredients are. What? Where did she come up with that? It's almost like that's something she was... I don't know, told to say?
Lest Domino's get any ideas about some ad where I'm watching TV calling their focus group fake, and then they have all the members of the focus group walk into my living room and introduce themselves to prove they're real people, I'm not necessarily saying that this ad was faked. But I am saying, for sure, that if you wanted to make an ad that looked fake, that was supposedly real but was so insanely convenient that it had the whiff of contrivance all over it... well, you couldn't do much better than this.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Avocado's number
What the fuck is happening here?
[We open on a super-fake-looking party with goofy background noise and two people not actually talking to each other but rather holding hot dogs at strange angles. Cut to a woman who was clearly just standing there waiting for her cue, striding forward with... a bag of avocados!]
Host [I assume]: "Perfect!"
So this is some sort of weird avocado party? "Everyone just show up with a bag of avocados! All other food will be provided."
[The doorbell rings. Some woman opens it.]
John Lynch: "Hey!"
[The two people who were holding hot dogs look at each other and shake their heads.]
John Lynch: "Wait! I'm- I'm John Lynch! Nine-time Pro Bowler! World champ!"
[He flashes his Super Bowl ring, but it's no use - the door closes in his face.]
Was John Lynch invited to this party? Or does he just walk around neighborhoods wearing his Super Bowl ring, looking for houses with a lot of cars parked outside, trying to get into strangers' parties based on his extremely tenuous fame? (For the record, I watch a lot of football, and I would not have recognized John Lynch had he not introduced himself. Peyton Manning he is not.)
[The doorbell rings again; Lynch offers a tray of some sort of snack - chicken wings? - but the door closes on him again. He tries again with a football-shaped cake - no dice. The woman bulges her eyes as if to say, "I don't think so."]
This makes sense. I don't think I'd let some random dude into my party even if he used to play football and even if he brought his own cake. But wait until you find out why he can't come in.
Voiceover: "What do you bring to a party that has everything?"
Not chicken wings or a football cake, I guess. Although this party does not seem to have those things.
Voiceover: "Fresh, creamy Hass avocados!"
Um, question. How exactly does this party have everything when apparently all it has are Hass avocados? Hot dogs? Throw some Hass avocados on there. Canapes? Better be topped with tiny avocado pieces, asshole. Chicken wings? I can't think of any way to add avocados to that, so basically get the fuck out.
Voiceover: "Nothing else will do!"
Aside from making guacamole, who does anything with avocados for a big party they're hosting? If I went to a party and everything had avocados in it, I would make one of two assumptions: either the hosts have been growing avocados in their backyard and just experienced a bumper crop, or the hosts are in some weird cult that pushes the benefits of the avocado for some reason.
John Lynch: "Puppies!"
Lynch has learned a lot from Pierce, it would seem. But it's worth noting that this commercial ends on a cliffhanger. Do puppies get Lynch into the party? Does the fact that the puppies are in a Hass avocados box win him any points? Or are the guests just even more furious with him? "You took perfectly good avocados out of that box and filled it with puppies? I couldn't eat a puppy with avocados even if I wanted to. Get lost before we call the police on you for avocado-related harassment!" Dammit, Hass, I must know! I smell sequel! Maybe you could get another ex-football player who is not famous enough on sight to warrant appearance in a national ad to appear. I just hope you're paying them in avocados.
[We open on a super-fake-looking party with goofy background noise and two people not actually talking to each other but rather holding hot dogs at strange angles. Cut to a woman who was clearly just standing there waiting for her cue, striding forward with... a bag of avocados!]
Host [I assume]: "Perfect!"
So this is some sort of weird avocado party? "Everyone just show up with a bag of avocados! All other food will be provided."
[The doorbell rings. Some woman opens it.]
John Lynch: "Hey!"
[The two people who were holding hot dogs look at each other and shake their heads.]
John Lynch: "Wait! I'm- I'm John Lynch! Nine-time Pro Bowler! World champ!"
[He flashes his Super Bowl ring, but it's no use - the door closes in his face.]
Was John Lynch invited to this party? Or does he just walk around neighborhoods wearing his Super Bowl ring, looking for houses with a lot of cars parked outside, trying to get into strangers' parties based on his extremely tenuous fame? (For the record, I watch a lot of football, and I would not have recognized John Lynch had he not introduced himself. Peyton Manning he is not.)
[The doorbell rings again; Lynch offers a tray of some sort of snack - chicken wings? - but the door closes on him again. He tries again with a football-shaped cake - no dice. The woman bulges her eyes as if to say, "I don't think so."]
This makes sense. I don't think I'd let some random dude into my party even if he used to play football and even if he brought his own cake. But wait until you find out why he can't come in.
Voiceover: "What do you bring to a party that has everything?"
Not chicken wings or a football cake, I guess. Although this party does not seem to have those things.
Voiceover: "Fresh, creamy Hass avocados!"
Um, question. How exactly does this party have everything when apparently all it has are Hass avocados? Hot dogs? Throw some Hass avocados on there. Canapes? Better be topped with tiny avocado pieces, asshole. Chicken wings? I can't think of any way to add avocados to that, so basically get the fuck out.
Voiceover: "Nothing else will do!"
Aside from making guacamole, who does anything with avocados for a big party they're hosting? If I went to a party and everything had avocados in it, I would make one of two assumptions: either the hosts have been growing avocados in their backyard and just experienced a bumper crop, or the hosts are in some weird cult that pushes the benefits of the avocado for some reason.
John Lynch: "Puppies!"
Lynch has learned a lot from Pierce, it would seem. But it's worth noting that this commercial ends on a cliffhanger. Do puppies get Lynch into the party? Does the fact that the puppies are in a Hass avocados box win him any points? Or are the guests just even more furious with him? "You took perfectly good avocados out of that box and filled it with puppies? I couldn't eat a puppy with avocados even if I wanted to. Get lost before we call the police on you for avocado-related harassment!" Dammit, Hass, I must know! I smell sequel! Maybe you could get another ex-football player who is not famous enough on sight to warrant appearance in a national ad to appear. I just hope you're paying them in avocados.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)