I’ve created this post for any Radio Advertising Letter subscribers who would like to comment on the two main topics I address in the newest issue.
CRITIQUE MY CRITIQUE; A.E. POISONING THE WELL
Next post: BOBBY OCEAN’S SUNDAY RADIO CARTOON
Previous post: SMN’s HISTORY OF RADIO: 1976 – 1982
Comments on this entry are closed.
Dan, I applaud Steve’s ATTEMPT at relating to the listener through a story. I actually had a similar experience years ago when I was holding my 10-month-old son and he bit my nose. I dropped my coffee (but not my son). However, I agree with your critique. I think the name Dexter made the spot less believable. I’m guessing the writer was probably using it to be humorous as the scripting seemed to lean toward humor in telling how the stains occurred. Unfortunately, regardless of which Dexter you might be thinking of, the person voicing the commercial didn’t have the timing down to pull off humor this time so the story sort of fell flat.
I also agree that the announcer telling us about all the family memories captured by that carpet begs the question, “Now why was it I wanted to get rid of all those memories?” The spot works against itself.
One final note: it needs a better music bed. As the spot stands now, the music works okay at the start (not great, but okay), but it doesn’t work at the end. Make sure ALL elements of a production work together to communicate the intended core message. Anything else is a distraction.
Regarding the A.E Poisoning the Well, if I were the station manager, I’d go beyond consulting and fixing the copy. I’d offer to correct the script, produce a new spot or spots, and give the client a guarantee. (Make sure the results are measurable and don’t make a blind guarantee.)
I remember reading in Jay Abraham’s book, “Getting Everything You Can Out of All You’ve Got” that you should do what you can to remove or reduce the risk of doing business with you. What objection could the customer possibly have if you promise to deliver certain results, craft a campaign that will deliver those results, and structure the buy so the client gets sufficient saturation of its target audience. If you fail to meet the measurable objective, the customer gets his money back. If you DO meet the goal, he agrees to increase his advertising with the station.
Now, I did say the results have to be measurable, and part of the sales puzzle is how the client handles the customer once she calls or walks in. You don’t guarantee the sale. You guarantee the pre-qualified customer. Just make sure you determine a way to measure which ones came as a result of your station.
I liked the IDEA, but I think they should have done a better job of SAYING it!
I got lost with the “keep his shoes on for naps” part… what was that? That made me think Dexter may have been a dog, but then they said they “got Dexter a puppy” (I’ve never heard of someone getting a puppy for a dog, so Dexter must be their child)
All that said, it may be fun to have the ad ACTUALLY BE about a dog rather than a kid. Have that as the “ah ha” at the end… you find out that Dexter is a German Shepard. (maybe a fun angle, then Dexter would be a GOOD name… I could see someone naming their dog Dexter)
Anyhoo… That’s all I can think of on my 3.75 hours of sleep last night. I was up all night wondering how many years of experience MY carpet cleaner has!
Why don’t they tell us that IMPORTANT stuff?
@ BIG JOHN: I believe you’ll find just what you need at http://www.HowManyYearsExperienceDoesMyCarpet- CleanerHave.com
On the production side, the announcer did sound a little too wooden. Enunciation is important in radio of course, but too much doesn’t sound natural. The music wasn’t doing it for me either, maybe another cut, or nothing at all.
This is just me, but I like Dan’s use of the ‘popular baby names’ list. I’ve actually looked up the most popular names of say, 2000, to find out what names an 8 year old would have today. But then, I am a little anal retentive that way.
Dan,
You make a great point on using the name Dexter (a less common name in American culture) in the Extreme Carpet and Tile spot, but perhaps there’s a related topic to pursue further in a future newsletter. First, allow me to share my experience when listening to the commercial for the first time.
I listened to the spot as you requested before reading the critique. I did in fact picture a little boy named Dexter, but in hind site I acknowledge that my brain was having to work a little to form a mental image of the little guy because of his usual name. Proof of this is in my next mental image. When the announcer said that Dexter bit dad’s feet, I immediately was picturing a dog biting dad. Perhaps because Dexter is more like a dog’s name to me. Then it mentioned that Dexter had gotten his first puppy. In my mind I’m picturing a dog with a puppy. Dexter had puppies? By this time I had long forgotten about the milk and was thinking about pee stains on the carpet. I will admit my comprehension skills are not the best. In my defense, is it not safe to say that the average person listening to any commercial is listening passively and may be in the same state of mind? I’m sure you would agree that the goal of any commercial is to draw people into the story – making active listeners out of passive listeners. Yet here I was, an active listener, who’s brain got hung up on the name Dexter.
This brings me to a debate I’d like to hear your comments on. I have heard other “Ad Experts” (tongue in cheek) talk about “surprising the brain” with fresh language. I’ve always been a proponent of working at saying things in a new way in an attempt to get away from clichés that the brain so easily dismisses.
That said, could not someone argue that the first time I heard the commercial using the name Dexter, my initial confusion would cause me to tune in even closer the next time I heard the spot in an attempt to make sense of it? I’ve heard the argument before – “a commercial does not have to be easily understood the first time around to be effective, because it compels the listener to become more engaged each time they hear it”.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Come on, how often do you get Forrest Gump to read an advertisement for you? Or was that really the way the client talks? Or was the the AE?
RE: Poisoning the Well, as I was telling a FGBMI breakfast the other day; Radio Advertising works, sadly a lot of Radio Advertisements don’t.
Rob Holding
New Zealand