Dear Progressive,

The Insurance Store created in your commercials is a great concept. However, the star of your commercial is the most irritating presence in ads since Alltel Chad stepped on the scene. Second, I think the priorities you are promoting are a little out of whack. In one commercial, a woman complains about the cost of car insurance, and upon seeing how much she can save (it’s around $400 bucks I think), she joyously announces she can buy new shoes. NEW SHOES??? You can barely afford car insurance and you are going to use your savings on NEW SHOES???? We are in a freaking recession, lady!!!! Why not pay down some of that credit card debt or get your poor children health insurance. AND THEN…our terribly annoying saleslady informs us that approximately 400 bucks can buy a “big tricked-out nametag.” No.

UUUUGH,

K

Dear Old Mutual,

Replacing random words with “Old Mutual” will never catch on and I’ll tell you why…The replacements make ZERO SENSE. If the use of “Old Mutual” was put in place words and phrases that reflect your alleged principles such as “common sense” and “responsibility” and “intuition,” THAT would make sense. However, replacing anything and everything with “Old Mutual” does not. What on Earth are you trying to do when “Old Mutual” replaces not only people’s delight, but their disgruntlement about other people getting promoted as a result of nepotism or kids whining about their uptight parents? I think it is time to rethink this one.

Kindest Regards,

K

Dear TheLadders.com

If this is not the most stuck up ad I’ve ever seen, I’ll be damned:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WhqqAUh1VPU

I am actually pretty sure you’re connecting with your audience here, but at whose expense. We’ve got the clean cut guy playing tennis whose “game” is ruined by a bunch of unkempt slobs. I think there’s better ways of conveying that you have jobs for elite than making those who aren’t qualified look like riff raff.

Sincerely,

K

Dear Al Gore,

Your rock. I just read about the ad campaign for your not-for-profit The Alliance for Climate Protection that is slated to begin next week. Now we all know that PSAs tend to be A) boring or B) trying a bit too hard to be edgy. However, what I just read about your campaign literally brought a smile to my face. Let’s have a read at the clip from the 60 minutes article:

Some of the ads will feature unlikely alliances to drive home the message that people of all stripes are concerned about global warming. These include the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Pat Robertson, Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks, and Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich.

This is absolute brillance. I would like to shake the person who came up with this strategy’s hand. Hell, I might even bear hug him or her. Among the pairings, that of Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks is astounding. For those who don’t remember, they had a long battle over opinions on Bush that at one point involved shirts reading “FUTK”. As divisive as politics have been along party lines these days, this campaign will give strong evidence that global warming that transcends politics.

All the Best,

K

Dear Axe and BodMan,

You have a lot in common, primarily that you are nearly the exact same product  – both manly-scented deoderizing body sprays. There are 2 major differences:

1. BodMan has been around a heck of a lot longer (in the US, it seems – see Post Script)

2. Axe (known as Lynx across the pond) is hugely successful; BodMan is not. (Side Note: Tag Body Spray has attempted to piggy back on Axe’s strategy but has not been nearly successful due to the fact that it’s a lame imitation.)

Now why the difference between Axe and BodMan? Simply marketing.

You can watch a BodMan ad here.

If you didn’t check it out, here is the description: Sweaty men playing football, dated up-tempo music, woman saying “Hot bod, I want your bod” and an image of cheapo-looking, clear containers filled with a concotion that looks radioactive. It’s cheesy and unappealing to men. Sure it plays on women being attracted to men, but the execution is horrific.  For a description that illustrates my point, read the post by Stinger97 on this forum. (These ads were running in 2007, think about that.) 

Guys probably got Bod Man only when their well-meaning mothers stuck it in their stockings to give them a sly reminder to freshen up.

On the other hand, Axe stormed onto the seen with controversial ads that appealed to men’s basic instincts – getting laid. And if smelling good is what it takes, men will cover themselves in Axe. (Trust me, I know more than a few.) I had a friend who initially thought Axe was lame, but the advertising was edgy enough to grab the interest of some women as well and pretty soon he was going through a can a week.

Additionally, Axe has gotten extremely creative. There have been entire programs that are, quite simply, Axe ads. They’ve aired both on Spike TV and MTV (Game Killers). Spike TV aired  “Exposing the Order of the Serpentine,” an alleged 30 minute news-doc about how a secret cult of men who, I guess, worshipped snakes and got laid by beautiful women. This was, of course, an extended ad for Axe’s Snakepeel Body Wash. Some people might find it a bit sleazy, but the content could be considered actually entertaining, which is where Axe always scores big. Sure it’s a little risque at times, but that it what Axe is going for and the audience eats it up. At times, it is even artsy. Check out this Lynx (Axe in England) ad:

Seriously, I could see an NYU student hawking this thing at an independent film festival.

Additionally, Axe has nailed the product packaging where BodMan also miserably failed. Instead of the hideous container that (I’m pretty sure) is fashioned to look like sculpted abs that Bod Man uses, Axe has sleek black containers with abstract graphics. Bod Man has updated the look on some of the products, but if you check out their website…Well…see for yourself.

The point being, Bod Man could have been Axe six or seven years before Axe came on the scene – though I would have dropped the “Man” half of the name.

As I’ve said before, strategy makes all the difference.

Sincerely,

K

PS. Evidently, Axe, you launched in France (huh, really) in ‘83. Although you didn’t come bounding onto the scene in the US til around ‘03. Maybe you were spending those 20 years perfecting your tactics. Though I must say, I associate the french with sex…but not using smelling good to get it. Points to ponder, I suppose…

Dear Dominos,

I have written about fine print in pharmaceutical and financial advertising – both industries where one would expect fine print – and now I write about fine print advertising regarding…wait for it…pizza delivery. Even though the commercials tell me that I’ve got thirty minutes and it’s stupid entertaining characters show me all of the stupid funny things I could do during those thirty minutes, it turns out I could have a lot more time to do said things. That’s because, right before the announcer engergetically tells me “You Got 30 Mintues” (shouldn’t it be “You’ve Got 30 Minutes”?) there is some fine print at the bottom of the screen that tells me otherwise. It appears around 7 seconds. Let’s have a watch…

In case you didn’t feel like squinting that hard to read it, it says:

Because safety is a priority, “You Got 30 Minutes” is not a guarantee, but an estimate.

So, basically, the tagline is a lie. I understand that safety is a priority, but just like in the case of Celebrex, maybe you should switch up your strategy. I know that “You/You’ve Got More Than Thirty Minutes” isn’t very catchy, so maybe you should stick to advertising your disgusting delicious product instead of your inability to hire Nascar wannabes as drivers.

Sincerely,

K

Dear Wachovia / AG Edwards,

I have known for a bit that AG Edwards had been folded into Wachovia, but I had forgotten, and the commercial I saw to night delivered me what I have to admit was a very nice reminder. Unfortunately, I cannot find the video. (Shame on you, Wachovia. youTUBE these things!) As I have mentioned before, I have had a great deal of respect for AG Edwards advertising stragtegy, and I have always enjoyed Wachovia’s ads (though I have not mentioned this).

The adverisement tonight, which I shall entitle “With” (hell, that may even be the real title) was quite pleasant. It had fantastic narration, charming visuals, and at the very end my beloved egg rolled right into the Wachovia logo. I positively love advertisements that provide me with an enchanting and memorable experience and this was certainly one of those. Well done.

All the best,

KR

Dear Candidates,

Although I typically stick to traditional advertising, I am going to take a brief forray into campaign strategy – signage. As you may or may not know (I’m going to guess all that campaigning has gotten in the way of reading this blog), I am all about keeping things consistent. In this realm, one candidate succeeds, and the other does not.

Even when the message is slightly different, the fonts and colors on Obama’s supporters’ signs are the same. He uses a nearly identical placard on the front of the podium when he speaks and nearly everyone is holding an “Obama ‘08″ sign or a sign that says “Change we Can Believe In” on one side, and “Stand for Change” on the other. This consistency allows Obama to drive home his message with even the most casual observer.

And then we have Clinton. This post was inspired by noticing the changing signage at every event. Everything from placards on her podiums to the signs punctuating the audience to the banners hanging behind her change with each rally. They include (but are not limited to):

And they all look dramatically different. And I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that this simple element (signs, placards, and banners) is actually a microcosm of their campaigns as a whole.

Good Luck on the Trail,

K

Dear Celebrex,

After the whole Vioxx fiasco, I understand that you have to be very clear with consumers about how your product just may kill them. That being said, I don’t think an entire commercial of fine print is the way to go. While most ads show happy people feeling better with a blurb about horrific side effects towards the end, your entire animated ad is nothing but over two minutes (YES, OVER TWO MINUTES) of explaining the multitude of risks. Let’s have a watch:

I don’t have arthritis, so I don’t know how bad it sucks, but all of those side effects (like dying) sound a whole lot worse.

The laundry list of things to worry about includes:

Not to mention, it’s incredibly boring. Your best bets are to A) hire a new media planner and B) maybe lay off the advertising until something fresh has come out of R&D.

Cheers,

K

PS – I’m not saying you should hide the risks (see: Vioxx), but what I am saying is that a product with so many risks may need to rethink advertising until it is a bit safer.

PPS – I’m still not entirely sure this isn’t some sort of punishment from the FTC. That’s actually the best explanation I can come up with for this trainwreck…

Dear E-Trade,

I know that you are known for your extremely peculiar commercials and I think I know your target market these days: grown up gamers. This could be a great ploy for you, because these fellows may just treat trading like a game and blow all their money on your trading prices before they spend it all and go back to playing Halo 3 in their Mom’s basement.

However, have you considered that you may be alienating your other, wealthier target markets? When it comes to the more professional set, I think they’d rather NOT go with the company that uses the words “tool” (TWICE) and “dirt squirrel” in its advertising. And, as we know, the professional type are likley to be much savvier investors and will keep giving you money for much longer, no matter how “great” of an investor all those fancy charts on your website could make those tools in the ad.

Love,

k