It's been harder than I thought to put together a blog about bad commercials.
First off, obtaining copies of the commercials to include in the blog has been harder than I thought. I've been sourcing them from YouTube but then I am reliant upon other people posting material and maybe some of the bad commercials I've seen on TV haven't been worth the trouble for someone to upload to YouTube.
Secondly, critiquing bad commercials can be tempting as a way of venting frustration with certain advertisers who choose to produce them, but I find it's detracting me from my love of commercials as an art form as well as a form of communications. So, in some respects, slagging the bad commercials doesn't do justice to the good advertising that's out there - which is by far the majority.
My wife HATES commercials and usually, when we watch TV, if she has the remote, she'll mute the commercials. I, on the other hand, enjoy the commercials (and the content wouldn't be available free if it weren't for advertisers)
So I'm proposing to set up a new blog, which I plan to entitle "The Best ... and Best Forgotten" to highlight what I think are some of the better commercials I've seen and some that, as the title suggests, are best forgotten. Watch for it. Think I'll put a link to it in my next post here.
I think, with this, I'll have a chance to promote advertising in showcasing example of good ads and the juxtaposition of good vs. bad ads will help underline how bad bad can be.
Ron
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
CARAMILK - Modern Dance
At one point in my past, I had the privilege of being the Brand Manager on Cadbury's iconic CARAMILK candy bar.
This is a brand with a rich history of great television commercials that developed a mystique around the brand. Here is an execution from 1973 that set the tone for the campaign.
I was so glad to find a clip of the commercial I worked on when I was on the brand. It was essentially a remake of 2001: a Space Odyssey, but we only aired it for 13 weeks because, the day we started the shoot was also the day of the Challenger disaster.
Now we come to the latest execution.
To me, it's hard to see how this commercial ads value to this brand, and I have to say I'm embarassed that this has entered the brand's creative portfolio.
I'm assuming this was inspired by Cirque de Soleil, and this is based solely on the design of the costumes the dancers wear. Unfortunately, the costumes do not enhance the seductiveness or charm of the brand. They just look clunky and weird.
The dance itself appears to be well choreographed in terms of execution but, again, there is at best only a weak connection between the movements and the brand concept or character. The whole dance, to me, makes no sense. There is no logical progression from one dequence to the next; no sense of flow - and the main idea behind the brand is "the soft, flowing caramel".
The idea of using dance to represent the CARAMILK brand had great potential. Using Cirque de Soleil as a concept behind the dance would have been great.
However, the execution leaves so much to be desired it fails to make CARAMILK a brand that a contemporary consumer would desire.
This is a brand with a rich history of great television commercials that developed a mystique around the brand. Here is an execution from 1973 that set the tone for the campaign.
I was so glad to find a clip of the commercial I worked on when I was on the brand. It was essentially a remake of 2001: a Space Odyssey, but we only aired it for 13 weeks because, the day we started the shoot was also the day of the Challenger disaster.
Now we come to the latest execution.
To me, it's hard to see how this commercial ads value to this brand, and I have to say I'm embarassed that this has entered the brand's creative portfolio.
I'm assuming this was inspired by Cirque de Soleil, and this is based solely on the design of the costumes the dancers wear. Unfortunately, the costumes do not enhance the seductiveness or charm of the brand. They just look clunky and weird.
The dance itself appears to be well choreographed in terms of execution but, again, there is at best only a weak connection between the movements and the brand concept or character. The whole dance, to me, makes no sense. There is no logical progression from one dequence to the next; no sense of flow - and the main idea behind the brand is "the soft, flowing caramel".
The idea of using dance to represent the CARAMILK brand had great potential. Using Cirque de Soleil as a concept behind the dance would have been great.
However, the execution leaves so much to be desired it fails to make CARAMILK a brand that a contemporary consumer would desire.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
No Kudos to Koodo Campaign
Koodo is a cell phone service which I'm assuming was launched in 2008. From the two executions you'll see posted here, I really have to wonder who their target group is - certainly not me. Both spots came out over the Christmas period and I was cringing even at the first viewing.
There's nothing wrong with doing a Christmas season commercial and using carols for the music. It helps make the link between the commercial and the season (and it helps keep the advertisers from using the bad ones after the season is over.)
I suppose the commercials at least conveyed the basic service proposition - no fixed-term contracts and unlimited texting.
My objection, and the reason for wanting to include these executions in this blog, is more the style and tone of the commercials.
Jingles are supposed to rhyme. I'm OK with that. But the copywriters seemed soooo stretched for rhymes on these two.
In one case, my last memory of the commercial is the line "... don't eat yellow snow." I guess it was the only way the copy writer could come up with a phrase that rhymed with Koodo and had something to do with winter. What does this have to do with cell phone service?? (More importantly, what does this say about the brand manager who signed off on this copy?!?) The only person I've known who could make that line funny (apart from some of my sophomoronic friends) was Frank Zappa. This doesn't even come close.
From the same commercial, the terms "gross" and "sleazy" stick in my mind - perhaps as descriptors for these executions. In my sales training, we were always told to never slam your competition - to always portray our competitors as capable, but we're just a bit better. Heavily loaded terms like gross and sleazy, in this case, don't make for a very positive impression of Koodo and, since they're terms I remember from the commercial, they also present a real risk of Koodo being seen as the ones who are gross and sleazy - not the competition!
I'm old enough to remember the "follow the bouncing ball" cartoons. The format's not bad. Not great.. but not bad either. But where did they dig up the two dudes whose faces we're supposed to follow along as the jingles are sung? They look like they're straight out of the seventies - big hair and fu Manchu moustache and all. Does this mean we're supposed to see Koodo as some fantastic technology from the past that's finally caught up to us? Or does it mean the art director watched "Up in Smoke" the night before presenting to the client while enjoying the fruits of his "herb" garden?
In either case, I don't think these devices bring anything to the executions that adds value for the target group or enhances the image of Koodo as a brand.
Back to the Brand Manager, who’s going to have these babies in his/her portfolio. Who is your target group? If it’s anyone over the age of 30, I think you missed the mark completely. If it’s tweens, you might have a chance. The lyrics sound sort of like how my kids talked when they were in their teens – and THEY didn’t think the commercials were humorous. The commercials WERE provocative – but not in a positive way.
Please Koodo, do not repeat these commercials next Christmas. It would make me feel like Bill Murray’s character in “Groundhog Day”.
P.S. A useful exercise in assessing advertising is to both commercials 6 times in a row. If you enjoy the 6th time more than the first, it's probably a good execution. If you hate it more on the 6th time than the last (assuming you force yourself to six repeats), then it's probably a bad execution. If six viewings haven't made a difference to you, please check your pulse.
There's nothing wrong with doing a Christmas season commercial and using carols for the music. It helps make the link between the commercial and the season (and it helps keep the advertisers from using the bad ones after the season is over.)
I suppose the commercials at least conveyed the basic service proposition - no fixed-term contracts and unlimited texting.
My objection, and the reason for wanting to include these executions in this blog, is more the style and tone of the commercials.
Jingles are supposed to rhyme. I'm OK with that. But the copywriters seemed soooo stretched for rhymes on these two.
In one case, my last memory of the commercial is the line "... don't eat yellow snow." I guess it was the only way the copy writer could come up with a phrase that rhymed with Koodo and had something to do with winter. What does this have to do with cell phone service?? (More importantly, what does this say about the brand manager who signed off on this copy?!?) The only person I've known who could make that line funny (apart from some of my sophomoronic friends) was Frank Zappa. This doesn't even come close.
From the same commercial, the terms "gross" and "sleazy" stick in my mind - perhaps as descriptors for these executions. In my sales training, we were always told to never slam your competition - to always portray our competitors as capable, but we're just a bit better. Heavily loaded terms like gross and sleazy, in this case, don't make for a very positive impression of Koodo and, since they're terms I remember from the commercial, they also present a real risk of Koodo being seen as the ones who are gross and sleazy - not the competition!
I'm old enough to remember the "follow the bouncing ball" cartoons. The format's not bad. Not great.. but not bad either. But where did they dig up the two dudes whose faces we're supposed to follow along as the jingles are sung? They look like they're straight out of the seventies - big hair and fu Manchu moustache and all. Does this mean we're supposed to see Koodo as some fantastic technology from the past that's finally caught up to us? Or does it mean the art director watched "Up in Smoke" the night before presenting to the client while enjoying the fruits of his "herb" garden?
In either case, I don't think these devices bring anything to the executions that adds value for the target group or enhances the image of Koodo as a brand.
Back to the Brand Manager, who’s going to have these babies in his/her portfolio. Who is your target group? If it’s anyone over the age of 30, I think you missed the mark completely. If it’s tweens, you might have a chance. The lyrics sound sort of like how my kids talked when they were in their teens – and THEY didn’t think the commercials were humorous. The commercials WERE provocative – but not in a positive way.
Please Koodo, do not repeat these commercials next Christmas. It would make me feel like Bill Murray’s character in “Groundhog Day”.
P.S. A useful exercise in assessing advertising is to both commercials 6 times in a row. If you enjoy the 6th time more than the first, it's probably a good execution. If you hate it more on the 6th time than the last (assuming you force yourself to six repeats), then it's probably a bad execution. If six viewings haven't made a difference to you, please check your pulse.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Cheetah Energy Drink
This isn't a new one, but it is in such bad taste that I had to include it, and thought it might be a good way to set the tone for this blog.
Unfortunately for us viewers, it's a 60-second format, though that gives us plenty of time to escape to do other things. If you can't leave the TV set or change channels, you're stuck with 60 seconds that will make you wonder when advertisers have hit rock bottom.
The concept of the commercial is a talk show, "Being Frank", whereby guests are supposed to be open and honest about their foibles. The Host, in this case, is Frank D'Angelo, CEO of D'Angelo Brands and probably serves as an excellent example of why chief executives should NOT be in commercials.
The product being shilled is CHEETAH energy drink. Now, I think CHEETAH is a great name for an energy drink, because cheetahs are known to be the fastest animals on land. (If I'm wrong, please just take this as poetic license!) I've never tried the product, so I have no idea how well it lives up to it's promise - besides, this blog is about the ads, not the products.
For this commercial, Frank's guest is Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter who won the gold in the 100 Meter Dash at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but lost his medal and was digraced when he tested positive for steroid use.
The first indication of poor attention to detail is the super that appears, "Canadian Olympian Track Star". Mr. Johnson is indeed a Track Star, and he was indeed an Olympian. I would have preferred to see "Canadian Olympic Track Star" or "Canadian Olympian and Track Star". It may be a bit pedantic, but at least try to get it right.
Next we have Frank asking Mr. Johnson "When you run, do you CHEETAH". It looks pretty innocuous in print, but, as delivered in video, it sounds like Mr. Johnson is being asked to confess if he cheats at sports.
In response, Mr. Johnson grins and says yes "Absolutely ... [he] CHEETAH['s] all the time!" Poor Mr. Johnson, at this point, holds up the CHEETAH can to the camera so everyone can see it clearly.
Having been publicly humiliated in 1988 over the doping scandal, surely Mr. Johnson has endured enough punishment without having his reputation further tarnished by associating with the CHEETAH brand. That's why I find this commercial in poor taste.
We're pretty certain he accepted this gig solely for the money, because it's known his financial situation is far from healthy. However, we have doubts if he really knew what he was in for when he signed up.
Finally, Mr. D'Angelo is featured in all commercials for his products (e.g., STEELBACK beer). Putting your CEO in commercials makes sense if it adds value and/or credibility to the brand. However, the quality of the execution of these commercials is weak. They look like they were done on the cheap.
So what does this really say about Mr. D'Angelo's products?
Unfortunately for us viewers, it's a 60-second format, though that gives us plenty of time to escape to do other things. If you can't leave the TV set or change channels, you're stuck with 60 seconds that will make you wonder when advertisers have hit rock bottom.
The concept of the commercial is a talk show, "Being Frank", whereby guests are supposed to be open and honest about their foibles. The Host, in this case, is Frank D'Angelo, CEO of D'Angelo Brands and probably serves as an excellent example of why chief executives should NOT be in commercials.
The product being shilled is CHEETAH energy drink. Now, I think CHEETAH is a great name for an energy drink, because cheetahs are known to be the fastest animals on land. (If I'm wrong, please just take this as poetic license!) I've never tried the product, so I have no idea how well it lives up to it's promise - besides, this blog is about the ads, not the products.
For this commercial, Frank's guest is Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter who won the gold in the 100 Meter Dash at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but lost his medal and was digraced when he tested positive for steroid use.
The first indication of poor attention to detail is the super that appears, "Canadian Olympian Track Star". Mr. Johnson is indeed a Track Star, and he was indeed an Olympian. I would have preferred to see "Canadian Olympic Track Star" or "Canadian Olympian and Track Star". It may be a bit pedantic, but at least try to get it right.
Next we have Frank asking Mr. Johnson "When you run, do you CHEETAH". It looks pretty innocuous in print, but, as delivered in video, it sounds like Mr. Johnson is being asked to confess if he cheats at sports.
In response, Mr. Johnson grins and says yes "Absolutely ... [he] CHEETAH['s] all the time!" Poor Mr. Johnson, at this point, holds up the CHEETAH can to the camera so everyone can see it clearly.
Having been publicly humiliated in 1988 over the doping scandal, surely Mr. Johnson has endured enough punishment without having his reputation further tarnished by associating with the CHEETAH brand. That's why I find this commercial in poor taste.
We're pretty certain he accepted this gig solely for the money, because it's known his financial situation is far from healthy. However, we have doubts if he really knew what he was in for when he signed up.
Finally, Mr. D'Angelo is featured in all commercials for his products (e.g., STEELBACK beer). Putting your CEO in commercials makes sense if it adds value and/or credibility to the brand. However, the quality of the execution of these commercials is weak. They look like they were done on the cheap.
So what does this really say about Mr. D'Angelo's products?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
