It's usually a new 30-second ad that sparks the ongoing debate: what makes an effective advertisement?
TV ads have a way of trending toward a few set methods, so I decided to jot down some of the most annoying methods I've seen in the past couple months. First, there are the "Tear Jerkers" or "Corporate Image" ads that are intent on making you feel fuzzy inside about a company because they did something nice for someone, and then kindly decided to spend millions let you know about it. Next, we have the increasingly popular "Aren't We Responsible" advertisements, where companies gloat about being carbon positive, planting trees, or printing invoices on recycled...whatever.
However, my absolute favorite ads right now are the "Forget-me-not" ads, where the main intent is to drill something into your brain so mercilessly that you will be compelled to buy it next time you are rotting in a line winding all the way back to the jewelry counter at Wal-Mart. Anyone who has seen an advertisement for HeadOn knows exactly what I am talking about.
The Debate: Are commercials like this "effective?" Every time I see ads like this, I can't help but wonder why anyone would be motivated to buy the actual product? The typical response I hear goes something like this: "Well, if they can get you to remember the product name...it's an effective ad!"
I couldn't disagree more. Consumers form negative associations with a product names, logos, and manufacturers just as easily as they form positive ones. I, for one, have a list of products that I won't buy, simply because I can't stand to watch the advertisements. Effective? I guess it depends on your definition. -Garret
Dude I feel the same way!
Posted by: Log | April 24, 2008 at 07:15 PM