February 2, 2009
Marketing PR
Why would a business pay three million dollars for 30 seconds of negative publicity?
Help me out--what am I missing? If you were to remember the name of the company that sponsored this ad (I rarely do), would you associate it with a positive or a negative? Would you remember the few seconds of happy redirection at the end or the the powerful negative experienced by its main character?
A 30 second ad played during this year's Super Bowl was reported to have cost three million dollars. Honestly, I just don't get it. What is the thinking behind this type of advertising?
In the Ideabook Design Store: Design-It-Yourself: Graphic Workshop...
$3,000,000 for exposure to 150,000,000 +/- people (estimated in the USA alone) not counting the International Exposure. Is my math wrong or is that .02 each?
Posted by: Joe Wagner | February 2, 2009 12:51 PM
Sure, but why for a negative?
Posted by: chuck
|
February 2, 2009 1:49 PM
Supposedly it would be negative for their competitor (Proflowers). It did make me think "Maybe I shouldn't use Proflowers next time."
Posted by: Gina Allen | February 2, 2009 2:33 PM
I found that ad so appalling that I used their website comment form to tell them I felt that way. And of course, I will never, never order from teleflora because of it. I enjoy funny ads, but I do not enjoy horrendously offensive, sexist "jokes" that perpetuate stereotypical (expletive) like that.
Posted by: AM | February 2, 2009 6:16 PM
I think to appreciate what they were trying to do, you would have to understand that their assumed target audience, during the super bowl would be mostly male and they were prepping for valentine's day. Bearing in mind the audience and the circumstance- male-bonding bowl game- it probably would be pretty funny and memorable.
My comments would be- Could it have been done in a more positive way- imagine how talking flowers could give one heck of a wow to your girl friend- making her think lovely things about you? I think it may have had more impact as a positive. And, they need to find a way to put their name in there more prominently- a quickie at the end like that- right now I couldn't tell you what florist was being promoted and I just watched it! Kind of defeats the purpose.
Posted by: PennyH | February 3, 2009 10:21 AM
Okay--what you're saying is the message is wrong and you didn't remember who the ad was for. What else is there?
To me, the client and the ad's designers need to ask themselves:
> Did the ad sell more of the idea, product, or service?
> Did the ad build a perception of the client or the goods that will eventually lead to increased sales?
> Did it communicate a critical message...correct a misconception...create a desire?
> Was the result proportional to the investment?
If the ad doesn't accomplish something significant here, what the heck DID it do?
Posted by: chuck
|
February 3, 2009 12:23 PM
I agree with you completely. By all proper accounts I think it is a complete flop and waste of money. In an effort to be "cute" and "different" the ad left a bad taste in my mouth and I don't think it will build the image or the cash flow of the company.
The shame is--there is a cool idea in there, that done positively, with a little more thought, would have left a really nice feel about the company, increased awareness of their product, and increased sales. Too bad they didn't think it through before trying to be "funny".
Posted by: PennyH | February 4, 2009 9:35 AM