Are Annoying Ad's Beneficial?

Has there ever been an ad on television or the internet, that seems like its only purpose is to get in your head, or to be annoying? I find that this happens far too often, especially with companies whose ads are constantly on the air. One commercial that seems to fit in this category is State Farm's commercial where one of the people in the accident has his mother show up instead of a state farm agent. I'm not sure if its that I've seen the commercial too many times, or if its the commercial itself, but whenever it airs I find myself reaching for the remote to mute the TV before the mother yells "SIX CALLERS AHEAD OF US JIMMY!". When a commercial becomes annoying not only does it get stuck in my head, but I start to resent the company for making the Ad. I understand that companies want their commercials to be memorable, or have a catchy jingle so the public remembers their product/service, but I feel that many companies are walking a thin line between memorable and simply annoying. A different commercial seemed to be annoying from the start; McDonald's "fish bits" commercial. In this ad the actors sing a "fish bits" jingle, which seems to get stuck in my head no matter what. With the amount of money these companies have to spend on ads, I feel that taking the annoying commercial route is only hurting their business, where they could be creating more effective commercials to promote their product.

Are there any commercials that annoy you? Do you think these ads actually help persuade people to buy the companies product?

In Response to Nicole Rutigliano's Post: Dr Pepper ten, "Not for Women"

I agree that many people will not want to drink soda's and other drinks with the word "Diet" in them due to the fact they most likely contain replacements for natural sugars that customers don't want to consume due to the side effects they may have. I especially agree with your idea that male customers will not buy a diet drink, but possibly due to the fact that dieting does not seem like a "manly" thing to due. In addition I feel the main buyers of soda, at least in large quantities, would be parents during their weekend shopping trip, whether to drink at home, or to give to their children for school lunches, or after soccer practice etc. In my experience  most of my friend's mothers are the ones that venture out to do the shopping, and with the slogan that's been negatively labeled  towards women, I feel that this would deter women shoppers to buy Dr. Pepper Ten, and to supply their children with the soda due to the message that's attached to it. Perhaps if they changed their marketing strategy to a soda that provides the energy to due all the activity's shown in the commercial and remove the "not for women" line, it might increase their customer base.

Do you think this type of marketing may be beneficial to the company?

Disaster of the Seas

Can Marketing Help Save Customer Loyalty for Carnival Cruises?

Even though Valentines Day is suppose to a romantic day for many, it can be implied that love was not in the air for the passengers of Carnival's cruise ship "The Triumph", as they exited the vessel after 5 days on what's being called the "cruise from hell". During their cruise in the Caribbean the ships engine malfunctioned and caught on fire, and as a result passengers of the ship had to endure five days without electricity, air conditioning, running water, limited food, and possibly worst of all: no working toilets. These unhappy cruise-goers could be seen literally kissing the ground after stepping foot on land five days ago surrounded by a herd of media representatives. Carnivals President and CEO was present to answer some questions as to why the fire broke out and try to express his apologies and condolences to those who were on the ship. However with this speech, two press releases and limited responses to the media's constant questioning, Carnival, as of yet has not launched a marketing blitz to try and maintain its loyal customers who may be second-guessing their yearly vacation time with Carnival. The question is how do you recover from such awful publicity? And with the longer they wait to start their marketing campaign/improving their ship safety programs, will it be too late to save their customer basis? Worst of all their competitors have jumped on board this incident by placing their own Ads (such as Princess Cruises) right before any online videos covering the story. Carnival's attempt to win over passengers with a departing gift of five-hundred dollars was taken as a slap to the face by some customers, many of which after being plunged into darkness on all floors not directly open to the outside, ended up camping all over the outside spaces of the ship.

When disaster strikes an organization as with Carnival Cruise Ships, is there any way they can recover their image? 

For more info check out:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/troubled-waters-carnival-triumph-18517690

In Response to Joseph Maturo's Post: Superbowl 2013 Commercials

Question: Do you think that it is worth these companies paying all this money for a commercial during the Superbowl? What is your opinions on this year's Superbowl commercials?


I would like to say that the money that these companies spend on their time slot for their products are worth it, but I don't believe many of the commercials will persuade customers to buy their product. For the most part Superbowl commercials are focused on laughs and entertainment value instead of the product itself. Many customers will go away remembering the funniest commercial because of the plot of the commercial, but not really remember the product the Ad was for. The Ad's are set out to be memorable, to have customers talking about their brand and therefore promote sales, but instead customers interests start and end with the commercial. Basically I don't know anyone that enjoyed one of the Superbowl commercials that then motivated them to go out and by a product they had never tried before. Superbowl commercials may help persuade current customers to remain loyal to their brands but I do not believe they'd do much more than that. If companies used their expensive time slots to inform new customers as to what benefits their product had while juggling the entertainment value, only then would I say their money was well spent.


Has a funny/entertaining Ad that focused more on a short story/event then the product itself ever persuade you to buy a certain product?

NBA All-Star Weekend: too many Ad's?

Last night was the official start of this year's NBA All-Star Weekend, and the sponsors of the events are clearly apparent, not only from the signs and game floor stickers, but to the name of the events themselves, such as the Sprite Slam Dunk Contest to the BBVA Compass Rising Stars challenge. It's understandable that companies want a stake in these highly watched events, but I believe that in some cases the advertising has gone too far.

Back in 2011, the moment from the weekend that everyone was talking about was Blake Griffin's two-handed dunk over a "car", or at least to me that's what KIA and Sprite wanted you to believe. However what I saw was him jump over the front bumper. Not to say this isn't an incredible feat in itself, but I believe the fact that the car was one of the main sponsor's of the event swayed the vote in Griffin's favor. Prior to Blake Griffin's Dunk the car drove out onto the court with prestige and an entire chorus was present singing as it entered. In an event that has a well established history from Dr. J and Micheal Jordan's free-throw lime dunks, 5'7" Spud  Webb's 360 dunk, to Vince Carter's 360 windmill, I believe that Blake Griffin jumping over his sponsor's car was in a way a cop-out. The other contestants in the 2011 competition stayed relatively true to the event, and one participant in particular showed more athleticism than the winner by dunking 3 basketballs, and also dunking on two hoops at once. With advertising creeping more and more into these events, I begin to wonder if the only way an athlete may win is with the help of their sponsors to create an eccentric brand infused dunk. Is it possible it could get as bad where athletes may not even dunk a ball but instead a box of Cheez-its, or dunk while applying their speed-stick deodorant?

Has their been a specific event or show where you felt the advertising began to effect the experience or outcome of the event?

Do you believe self regulation is more or less effective than governmental regulatory agencies?

In my opinion, I believe that self regulation is much more effective than government regulation. Although government regulations will affect societal mindsets I believe that in some cases they may create the opposite of their intended effect. As with illegal music downloading, I feel that the news of pending strict repercussions on illegal downloads caused a surge of such downloads right before the article took affect, since people realize that they will face a greater chance of legal side effects once the regulations take effect. However if there was more of a focus on why the regulations are being created, as to who in particular these acts effect, the act itself would begin to diminish. In other words if the effort placed in creating regulations was centered on spreading awareness on the issue at hand, there would be not only less of the harmful activity, but in addition the public would be informed as to why the particular behavior was bad. If the public understood how illegal downloading of music and movies effected the creators of this media, they may be more inclined to cease or at least limit this habit; more so than with regulatory prosecution where one particular individual is singled out for their downloading offenses and presented with an array of harsh charges simply to set them up as an example.

Do you believe that the government has regulated an area in particular too harshly?

In Response to Product (Red): Can a T-shirt save the world?

Do you think a partnership with Product (RED) can improve Gap’s image? Is it a sign that they are making a commitment to corporate social responsibility or do you agree with critics who say their involvement is an attempt to spit-shine the company’s image while continuing to do business as usual?

      Partnerships like the one between GAP and Product (RED) will undoubtedly boost GAP's image and appeal to socially concerned consumers, however I do believe that it many cases companies may latch onto charities such as RED primarily just to improve their annual returns. This is not to say that GAP is a unethical company in doing so, as I'm sure that the employees of GAP are concerned in aiding the struggle with HIV/AIDS in Africa, but the fact is that GAP is in business to sell clothing to their customers. In partnering with RED they know this new relationship will help them sell more shirts, as seen with Oprah's inspi(red) shirt which turned out to be their number one selling item in the past 35-years (as the article stated). However I believe that if they cannot continue to sell their RED products they will discontinue their line and adopt a new cause for publicity, instead of altering aspects of their operations that have negative repercussions  on the world (such as accusations of sweat-shop labor in countries such as Africa). 

After examining the GAP official website it would seem as if they did just that. In studying their homepage and even searching for Product (RED) attire, I could not even find their best selling RED item. However instead it seemed as if they had adopted a new cause: P.A.C.E. to help the advancement of women in other countries. 

So say if GAP really is just looking for ways just to extend their annual returns, do you believe this to be unethical? and also do you believe that consumers tend to catch on to this type of organizational behavior, and that they would feel strongly enough to change where they shop?