It's a great insight into the "any publicity is good publicity" mentality. Unfortunately, this type of advertising is also foolish and short-sighted, a knee-jerk response to fractionating media and soaring production costs. Agencies are struggling to justify the high cost of a Superbowl spot, and aim to get maximum bang from the client's buck.
But instead of a smart strategy to create buzz, some agencies simply act on the fear that TV ads are becoming obsolete in the face of TiVo, iPods, and internet media. And the ads produced from this philosophy are pretty lame - often based on shock value, they're usually vapid. The Paris Hiltons of the ad world. Ads like this will only stand up to so many re-viewings, and then people will get irritated or bored with them (depending on how offensive they find it to be), and turn the channel. As a result, these ads have little long-term staying power and don't make a bigger statement that connects to the brand itself. Sure, they get remembered and discussed for a few days, but how many taboos can be broken before this transparent mechanism becomes repetitive? Consumers aren't stupid.
Why would brands want to associate themselves with a strongly unpleasant aftertaste in the consumer's mind? Wouldn't that engender a mental avoidance reaction?
This is like that kid in high school who always makes trouble to get attention - eventually, people just get sick of him.
And then they ignore him.
No comments:
Post a Comment