Sunday, September 30, 2007

Links appear in the order in which they are talked about.





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/business/media/28adco.html?_r=1&ref=media&oref=slogin

In class we have talked about the new Axe commercials in reference to what is and is not appropriate material to have in a TV ad. I personally think that anyone who is going to find a problem with the Old Navy ads' background music should also find it inappropriate to have commercials with young men being "abused" like they have in the Axe commercials. To not find it offensive as well would be a double standard of men versus women's rights.
However I do not have an issue with either of these things. I do have an issue with the stunt in the above-mentioned NYT article. I think that to do something so gross and disgusting and then go take a shower while people are filming and then going to watch it is demeaning and just plan sad. I know that the idea of the "Stunt' is to get attention but there has to be a better way. It says in the article that "promotions that focus more on entertaining viewers than on delivering product messages” how is that anyway to sell more of your product? Yes it can be entertaining and that will draw people's attention to your brand or product but if you are not really selling the product, if you are not differentiating it from any other men's shower gel, then you have given people no reason to buy your product over another when another can and does smell better or have a lower price.
I do find the new trend of having user generated interactive ads very interesting, for years people have done nothing but complain about commercials and how they try to sell us things and shove stuff down our throats. Now companies expect us to not only take an interest in commercials but to make them ourselves? I recently read an article that had a media executive saying that eventually he wanted to make it so that people would pay to see commercials and advertisements. Are people really that stupid? Are we going to one-day pay people to sell us something else? Will there be advertisements for commercials. Ads advertising for commercials that we have to pay for? Where will it end? So ask yourself if you would pay to see commercials and advertisements? Is this really a far stretch of the imagination?

~Rachel Dillard

No comments: