Ad Geek

One of the things I really enjoy is having the opportunity to teach classes. Luckily, my job gives me that opportunity on a regular basis. I also have recently done some guest lecturing for some college marketing courses, speaking about the ins and outs of internet marketing. One of the things that I spoke about in my last lecture was the challenge that businesses face while marketing their products: How do you get people's attention without annoying them? We talked about several different companies and their recent ad campaigns. Are they annoying, or effective? And what really is the difference? Since I bring this question up in classes, it is one I often think about as I am looking at how companies marketing themselves, whether it is online, in print, or on TV. This past week, I have seen examples of ads that I think are both annoying, and extremely effective, but which is better?

First, to the annoying side... There is a local company that sells beds, called Beds and More. I swear, they must have a billion dollar ad budget for their TV advertising, not because of the quality of their ads, but their frequency and the pure number of channels they advertise on. I can't seem to go 5 minutes without seeing one of their commercials.. look, there's one right now, as I type this sentence. Their TV ad consists of a simple still image with an animated logo that moves back and forth and these little repeating, echoing, high pitched voices yelling "Beds & More!!" over and over and again. It is seriously one of the most annoying commercials I have ever seen. Even my five year old covers his ears every time the stupid thing comes on the air, and yells "Dad, make it stop!!!!". Trust me, I'd love to. I'd love it if that ad tape somehow fell into the TV station incinerator, never to be played again. I'd even offer to run it over with my car, drag it down the street, But at the same time, when I think of beds now, that stupid commercial is what pops into my head. My son talks about the store, a store he has never been to, and heck, it's irritating enough to provoke a blog entry about it.

So.. now to my question.. is that a good thing? Or is that a bad thing? The whole goal of advertisers is to get their product into people's subconscious and in this case, has it worked? I would say it has. It almost reminds me of the old Quiznos... things... creatures... singing annoying songs on commercials. While the ad was rather short lived, it got me into the restaurant, and now I am a Quiznos addict. Chicken Carbanara... Ahhhhhhhhhh (that's my Homer Simpson drool). So again... annoying? Yes! But effective? Maybe.

Now to the other side of the coin... In general, I very much look forward to getting rid of ads all together... Hook up that TIVO and just skip the things all together. Stop breaking up my shows! Stop shoving your messages down my throat every where I look! Stop trying to send me subliminal messages (Eat at Olive Garden!) Stop showing me happy people doing things that are clearly bad for them (Eat at Olive Garden!) . Ad's are everywhere. But sometimes, ads come along that just do everything right. They sell a product, and they engage the viewer in ways that other mediums just cannot do.

I saw one of these ads the other night. Stopped me dead in my tracks as I stood in my kitchen, transfixed in front of the TV, unable to move as I struggled to comprehend what I was seeing. While doing a lousy job ignoring the Academy Awards broadcast (so much for the boycott I promised would come from not connecting with any of the nominated films) a commercial came on.

A camera slowly panning through a restaurant, and wait, was that M. Night Shyamalan (one of my favorite directors) sitting there?! What is this? Suddenly it pans to other couples, one having a fight, one having nice romantic dinner, a guy looking scared and sweating, but from what? What the heck was I watching here, and what did it all mean, Basil? In the end of this amazingly long commercial, the point finally comes. M. Night enjoys going to restaurants by himself and watching people, looking for those little story ideas that his mind craves. And to get him into that situation, he uses his American Express Card. His Card. His Life.

The whole American Express campaign, in my opinion is brilliant. Take common celebrities, but rather than have them stand there and endorse your product, you feel as if you are getting to know them in a more intimate setting and how that card affects them. From M. Night sitting is a restaurant, to a shopping Kate Winslet referring to her past roles she has played (my wife and I must have rewound that commercial 10 times trying to figure out which films she was talking about), to print ads where the they have celebs fill out surveys about mundane details about their lives. Rather than making this celebrity feel like some bigger than life person, they suddenly become an ordinary person, with an ordinary life, and we are being allowed in to it. In my opinion, it is the most interesting ad campaign out there today and I look forward to seeing future American Express commercials. (And yes, my AmEx card sits in my wallet, although I keep it tucked away so I don't use it too much!)

So what really is the difference between annoying and entertaining ads? Both get us talking. Both stick in our minds. I would much rather be entertained in a positive sense than annoyed, so Kudos to American Express, and Drop Dead Bed's and More. But again, they have us talking so either way, they must be doing something right.

----------------------------

By the way, off topic random question of the day: Who names colors? Why does my son have a crayon called "Macaroni and Cheese"? Why did I find an color swatch for a fabric called "Man's best friend?" What is THAT about? And how do I get one of those jobs? My new colors: "Ode to Duck" and "Weasel Tail". Now THAT'S effective naming!