5 ms·

If you have to explain an ad then it has failed.

by mixmax 18y ago

fauigerzigerk 18y ago
An ad that people talk about cannot have failed. Whether that talking is explaining or not doesn't matter.
- raganwald 18y ago
  David Ogilvy, in his seminal "Ogilvy on Advertising," describes the paradox of the "Gorilla in a Jock Strap." He explains that if what you want is buzz and recall, you simply show something outrageous, and people remember the ad. Put the company's logo on the jock strap, and people remember the brand. But do people buy the product? Does the ad reposition the brand or company?? It is certainly possible that this advertisement does either or both of these things, but simply generating buzz in and of itself is not a valuable use of an advertising budget. Now that I think about it, compare and contrast this to the famous 1984 ad. I love it, it's great theatre. It made everybody talk about Macintosh--because it mentioned the brand. It positioned the brand as being against IBM and corporate computing. This ad is empty calories, buzz without direction. Think about this: if all they wanted was this level of buzz, they could have put out a press release indicating they were buying Yahoo. Same buzz, doesn't cost M$300.
  - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
    The yahoo announcement did cost Microsoft shareholders deer ;-) But to the point, I agree with the principle you cite, but I don't think this ad is just empty buzz. I think making two people who are so outrageously successful look normal and a little stupid is supposed to make it easier for other normal folks to stand by their Microsoft PC buying choice in spite of Apple's coolness.
    - raganwald 18y ago
      I accept that the ad may do more than just generate buzz. I hope so! As much as I dislike MSFT's current policies, I'd rather see them change than die.
dejb 18y ago
You obviously don't buy into the whole idea of the subconscious. If you have to explain it FOR it to work then yes it has most likely failed. But whether or not you have to (or even can) explain WHY it works is a whole different thing. BTW I'm not sticking up for the ad. I doesn't do anything for me.

If you have to explain an ad then it has failed.

by mixmax 18y ago

If you have to explain an ad then it has failed.

fauigerzigerk 18y ago

An ad that people talk about cannot have failed. Whether that talking is explaining or not doesn't matter.

raganwald 18y ago
David Ogilvy, in his seminal "Ogilvy on Advertising," describes the paradox of the "Gorilla in a Jock Strap." He explains that if what you want is buzz and recall, you simply show something outrageous, and people remember the ad. Put the company's logo on the jock strap, and people remember the brand. But do people buy the product? Does the ad reposition the brand or company?? It is certainly possible that this advertisement does either or both of these things, but simply generating buzz in and of itself is not a valuable use of an advertising budget. Now that I think about it, compare and contrast this to the famous 1984 ad. I love it, it's great theatre. It made everybody talk about Macintosh--because it mentioned the brand. It positioned the brand as being against IBM and corporate computing. This ad is empty calories, buzz without direction. Think about this: if all they wanted was this level of buzz, they could have put out a press release indicating they were buying Yahoo. Same buzz, doesn't cost M$300.
- fauigerzigerk 18y ago
  The yahoo announcement did cost Microsoft shareholders deer ;-) But to the point, I agree with the principle you cite, but I don't think this ad is just empty buzz. I think making two people who are so outrageously successful look normal and a little stupid is supposed to make it easier for other normal folks to stand by their Microsoft PC buying choice in spite of Apple's coolness.
  - raganwald 18y ago
    I accept that the ad may do more than just generate buzz. I hope so! As much as I dislike MSFT's current policies, I'd rather see them change than die.

dejb 18y ago

You obviously don't buy into the whole idea of the subconscious. If you have to explain it FOR it to work then yes it has most likely failed. But whether or not you have to (or even can) explain WHY it works is a whole different thing. BTW I'm not sticking up for the ad. I doesn't do anything for me.