April 11th, 2006
If You Don’t Laugh at This Then You Are With The Terrorists
I wanted to get some opinion’s in hopes to start a discussion on my blog. What do you think of these two pieces of advertising? I came across these two ads that I find quite interesting. Both where banned in the United States for obvious reason. I first heard about these in a few discussions I had around the office and then later in a magazine article. The article was talking about what would be considered an advertising “No Fly Zone’” meaning that’s territory in the advertising world that we shouldn’t go to. But is it a good idea to set borders for where advertising should go and not go when society has subconciesly caught on with our tactics and are getting bored. These two are examples of giving a “shock” value to the ad to obviously grab your attention. This is the first goal of advertising. What is your opinion?
If you cannot see this, you need to download Quicktime 6 to view
Get it Here
Next to the tower: 2863 Dead
Next to the old man: 630 Million homeless
9-11 and terrorism are horrible and criminals must be brought to justice. However, what the world needs is solidarity and a focus on those things that truly terrorize the masses, disease, poverty, hungry and yes.. war!
What do I think?
My opinion, they are great creatives and probably what I would do. They give us consumers more credit. They treat us as living and breathing beings with a mind because these ads make us stop and think about where our opinions lye. What would you rather see, these ads or a Mcdonald’s ad selling you a Big Mac using dancing burgers or fancy jingles. The VW commerical is hilarious. I think its great planning and execution. When all you read these days is about wars, drafts and oil shortages it makes light of the whole situation and makes you laugh. It says we are really being idiots about everything that is going on right now and still sells a car. This commercial was pulled right before it was aired but has been the most successful viral movie for the past few months. I think advertising should be a little more like this because they capture my attention by treating me like a person, not a tool. And these ads work for a broader audience, another great goal any advertiser can acheive.
A great example that proves this is found in a forum that I came across when I was looking for these ads. In this political forum, mainly for republicans, one man left a post because he saw an MTV commercial for their Choose or Loose campaign in 2004. See the post here.
Last night I was channel surfing and I stopped on MTV. I could not believe what I saw. I’ll try to recap it as best I can recall:
They have a Choose or Lose commercial running showing a bunch of people in a party. A girl asks a guy something like does he plan to vote in the election. He says no, derisively. She says he should because of the draft! The announcer says that people should vote becuase issues like the draft will be decided by this election.
I was stunned by what I saw! MTV is trying to scare young voters into believing there is going to be a draft!!…
If you have time to read the comments please do but summed up, all the comments where about how MTV is horrible for scaring people into thinking there was a draft. It was very obvious they were completely missing the point. They were all freaking out because they thought MTV wanted teenagers to vote for Kerry. Far from the truth. The message was clearly trying to get people to vote and that there are issues that will affect you if you don’t vote. That is the message that this forum missed. If you read those comments you will see that they were more concerned about MTV brainwashing teenagers into voting for one side but completely oblivious to the fact that the ad was fueling even more their desire to vote because they wanted Bush to win. That is all the ad was trying to do and they were blind to the fact that the ad made them do what it wanted them to do.
So when people look at ads like VW’s “Suicide Bomber” and say “whoa its too much” or “I am offended,” are those statements saying they are not going to remember it. As an advertiser myself we are only concerned about recall. If you can remember the ad and connect it with the brand then we have done our job. It is more about selling a product than trying to force political views on you. If we need to establish an advertising “No Fly Zone” then lets start with ads that expect us to shovel out money to brands that think dancing products that sing will make us pay attention and buy. Even if the argument is that it will cater to a less educated market, I am pretty sure its safe to say that everybody would want to be treated like a person that has the ability to think.
April 15th, 2006
I think it depends on the context and intent of the ad. If shock value is all the ad is trying to achieve, then it may fall on the offensive side. On the otherhand it may communicate the message and therefore be appropriate. Perhaps it’s a fine line separating the two sometimes, but descretion and moral uprightness should be the judge, don’t you think?
April 18th, 2006
“I am pretty sure its safe to say that everybody would want to be treated like a person that has the ability to think.”
uuuummm, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one Justin. Despite the fact that most people would want to believe that they have the abliity to think I dont think most people have the capabilities and lack the effort to do so. Why do you think that advertising with stupid jingles has been so successful for decades?? You see, making educated and well grounded decisions often rely on having your facts and information straight. As you can tell from that forum most people are completely subjective when interpreting events and experiences. People often misconstrue information or change it to comply with their personal beliefs or subjective interpretations. Sorry, but I dont think ‘everybody’ should be treated like a person that has the ability to think - critically and logically that is.