The current issue of my Radio Advertising Letter includes a brief commercial critique as well as a guest commentary on “The Best Ad I’ve Ever Seen.”
This post is for my subscribers to use to add their own comments, thoughts, objections, examples, etc.
Comments on this entry are closed.
When companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing run television and radio advertising, I never see the purpose. Does it matter what the public thinks of them? Are they trying attract investors? Recruit employees? Build employee morale? Sell 747s?
What I find interesting about this commercial is the use of the corporate name as benevolent entity. “Lockheed Martin knows…” Oh Really? How? Did it suddenly form it’s own consciousness?
Of course I’m finding this even more hilarious since I just finished reading “The Lost Symbol” by Dan Brown. Read that book and then re-listen to this commercial. Try not to laugh out loud.
I am continually amazed that people are still able to spout on about nothing. Paul Meyers should be a politician. A 650 word reply to a 5 word statment. (Isn’t that called filibustering?)
Sorry, not an attack on Paul, just a statment on the industry’s penchant for loquaciousness.
@Rob: I have to disagree with you here. I published that piece because I think it’s terrifically insightful and useful.
One of my Facebook “friends” — and you’ll see why I put that in quotes — went so far as to say this is the single best Radio Advertising Letter I’ve ever published…
…and because it consisted almost entire of Paul’s guest column, I reluctantly conclude it’s because of Paul’s words, not mine.
He wasn’t filibustering. He was analyzing exactly what made that 7-word advertisement such a powerful model to follow in any medium.
Also, Paul isn’t in the radio biz. So if indeed he suffers from loquaciousness, he didn’t catch it from us.
Best. Issue. Ever. (Maybe.)
Chris: So you’re saying the only issue I’ve ever published that consisted mostly of something not written by me is the best issue ever (maybe)?
It’s just that this distilled so much of what you teach in the same way the cartoon that showed a mountain climber reaching the Oracle at the summit, with a caption that simply read ” (Hiker: ) The Hokey Pokey? (Oracle:) That’s what it’s all about” distilled all those lessons in editing down to one glorious “I get it!” moment. 🙂
And my partner now wants a kitten. Feh.
Would it still be the world’s most effective ad if they were charging for the kittens? Pretty easy to move inventory when it’s free. When you’re asking people to invest something significant (money/time/emotion/whatever) things are a little different, IMO.
A perfect example of copy that tells, tells, tells–and never once *shows* us anything. It’s pointless blather. Had the spot told one single story–painted a picture–about one really impressive result accomplished because of community outreach sponsored by Lockheed Martin, it might have actually had some impact. There could be an entire campaign of such stories. As it is, this is the obvious result of some unenlightened marcom manager pointing at his company and saying, “Look how great we are.” What it should be doing is pointing at something in the community and saying, “See how much better things are? You can help, too.”
Dead on. Just two small nits I shall now pick. (And I mean all this with love.)
1) “Useless branding.” In the context of the ad described, branding would indeed be useless. But there is an implication (or perhaps I’m inferring incorrectly) that branding overall is useless. Good branding is imperative. That doesn’t mean one runs branding messages at the expense of DR. The best small business advertising successfully brands a business while asking for the order. It’s how local category behemoths are created. They don’t just sell a product. They sell a company’s difference–especially when a parity product is involved.
2) There’s a line following “useless branding” that says, “Institutional advertising is an iffy proposition at best for big companies.” Institutional advertising is not branding. Institutional advertising is a type of message designed specifically not to sell a product, but to make consumers feel good about a company. Chevron’s branding messages talk about the importance of Techron for your engine. Their institutional messages talk about how environmentally responsible they are.
Brand is important, and institutional advertising has its place. (It’s been very useful for some of my clients.) But, as stated, these are small points. The overarching message of the article is dead on, and is something I’ve had to repeatedly convince advertisers and account reps of doing. Cue applause.
OK. Just realized both my previous comments posted to the same page. Qualifier: the first comment is about Lockheed Martin. the second comment is about The Best Ad Ever.
Mea culpa.
I have to chime in on the Free Kittens ad. There’s one thread on this that I can’t stop pulling at. But, (and if you’ll excuse the term), what about the ‘puppy dog’ command.
“Call” seems to be a rather abrupt call to action. Mind you, she does soften it with “please call”. I dunno, still ranks as a puppy dog command in my book. I wonder if there would be a better way to phrase it.
Great Dan, I’m now trying to perfect a free kitten ad. This will not serve me in life at all. In fact, I’m allergic to cats.
Thanks a lot.
@Scott: I had the same thought — including “puppy dog command,” which is a term from our friend Nick Michaels.
For the supermarket bulletin board ad, “Call” is no problem.
For a radio commercial, I’d finesse the Call To Action a bit.