The Worst Ads in America? Really?

As an avid reader of The Consumerist, I’m a bit baffled that I missed their inaugural “Worst Ad in America” poll. Somehow the celebration of all that rubs consumers the wrong way flew below my radar, and I completely missed out on the voting. It appears that my input into the discussion wasn’t necessary - most of the ones I would've voted for didn't win anyway.

Last week, 30 ad-offenders, from brands as big as McDonalds and as little as 5-Hour Energy, were divvied up into six categories and voted on. When the dust cleared Staples took home the honor for their “WOW! THAT’S A LOW PRICE!” campaign:



The ironic thing about this contest is that, despite these commercials being labeled as the cream-of-the-crap, they all end up doing what an ad's supposed to do: be memorable to the point where it becomes a part of the conversation - and even the cultural consciousness.

Sure it’s a pain in the eardrums to hear “WOW! THAT’S A LOW PRICE!” shouted four times in a row (I enjoyed the one iteration of “HOT DIGGITY DOG”) but it gets the message across: Staples=Low prices. The spots speak to the brief.

Granted, the ads in the contest all have something terrible about them, but in terms of their message and the extent to which the ads succeed, you really can’t question it. We’re still talking about the Toyota Sienna Couple even if we’re saying how weird they’re portrayed to be.

With all that said, I really can’t come up with something good to say about McDonald’s “Not Until I’ve had My Coffee” jerkface ad - winner of the Most Grating Performance by a Human award. Couldn’t stand it, and I’m pretty sure I’m in their target.

So, any campaigns you were surprised to see on the list? Any that weren't?

On the subject of awfulness in advertising: God the Bounty Hunter, Video Game Lame, Local Car Bads.

Sean Sutherland, Associate Account Executive/Arbiter of Bad Taste

Read more...

It's beginning to look a lot like McChristmas.

(via)

So far, the most impressive light display I've seen this year is a digital rendering of every McDonald's location in the contiguous United States. Little beacons of light, filling our bellies, burning our hearts, and reminding us that, no matter how far away we roam, we'll always be within 145 miles of a Big Mac and/or "the runs".

And really, isn't that what this season is all about?

Other Moments in McHistory: Skimming Latte Lovers from Starbucks; No gold for you; Eat your vegetables, Fatty

Read more...

Why Pay More...Seriously, Why Pay More?

Was flipping through Ad Age’s Annual 2009 the other day (yeah, I know it came out in January, but somebody took the “good” copy into the bathroom). Anyway, I saw a few interesting things. Generally, the company that spent the most money for their particular industry in 2007 earned the largest market share, which makes sense. And usually if you spent the second through tenth most, you didn’t grab a market share that much smaller or larger than you spent. If you spent the second most, you probably finished with a top five market share, and if you spent the 9th most, you probably finished in the bottom five. However, there were some anomalies, and those are the companies we should look at or avoid imitating.

Toyota spent half as much on media as General Motors, but grabbed 2/3 as high of a market share. Ford on the other hand grabbed 2/3 as large a market share as GM, but spent ¾ of what GM spent on Media. Nissan spent nearly half of what GM spent, but pulled only slightly more than ¼ of GM’s market. What were Ford and Nissan doing wrong?

You can see this across a variety of industries. Restaurant chains generally spend more on media than they reap in their share of the market. The one exception was Dunkin Donuts. The DD spent about 13% of what top dog McDonald’s spent, but grabbed 18 % of the share the Golden Arches held. KFC and Pizza Hut held roughly the same market share as Dunkin Donuts, but Pizza Hut spent nearly double what Dunkin Donuts spent, while KFC spent almost 2.5 times as much.

Beverages are the other way around. The top companies generally spend a smaller percentage compared to their share of the market. A huge exception is Gatorade (PepsiCo), who spent more than half of what Coca Cola spent, but only pulled in less than ¼ of what Coca Cola brought in. And that’s just media buys. It doesn’t even take into account how much they paid spokespersons like Peyton Manning and Derek Jeter (although that would at least make more sense). Sprite, on the other hand, sells itself. Coke spent only 12.5 million—5% of what they spent on Coca Cola—for a beverage that grabbed nearly a 1/5 of the market Coca Cola owned. Oh, and did anyone else know that Nestle owns 7 of the top-selling water brands, including Poland Spring and Deer Park? Who needs carbonation and sugar?

Now let’s talk about my favorite industry on this list--How to succeed at selling beer. 1) Be Anheuser-Busch. The Budweiser brewer held nearly 50% of the market, which is insane considering the next closest industry leader was AT&T with 27.4% of the wireless market. 2) So you’re not Budweiser. Then don’t be Heineken. The green bottled Dutch lager spent 1/3 of what Anheuser-Busch spent, but only had 1/10 of A-B’s market share. 3) Be Pabst. The now largest American owned brewer, on the other hand, spent less than 1% of what Busch spent, but held 6 % of Busch’s market share—the only brewer on the list besides Yuengling to reap more market than it sewed.

Now wireless is interesting, because the biggest spender didn’t hold the largest market share. The second largest provider, Verizon, spent $1,717.4 million, while the largest, AT&T, spent only $1,589.3 mil. After that, the numbers pretty much all make sense.

Oh, those poor retailers. When it comes to retail, ad spending doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Top spender Macy’s outspent second highest spender Sears by nearly $300 million, but Sears almost doubled Macy’s market share. Actually, at only 1.0% of the market, Macy’s had the seventh highest market share, and Sears had the fifth. The largest share (as if you couldn’t guess) went to Wal-Mart, who earned almost 11% of the market at about half of what Macy’s spent.

What does all of this mean? Well, marketers put a high value on premium products, but apparently Americans just want products that are cheap--Budweiser, Pabst, McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, Wal-Mart. Heineken is a premium product that enough Americans just haven’t bought into, and Verizon is a service that charges higher rates, based on their reputation, but apparently, Americans don’t care.

A big exception would be Starbucks, but when you charge $5.78 for something that costs $0.88, you’d have a healthy bottom line too. And Toyota’s not cheap, but they’ve got a reputation that goes back longer than Verizon’s. I mean, who would you rather steal from—Toyota whose Tundra can survive an asteroid strike, or Chevy, the company that thought it would be a good idea to purchase the Geo line.

The lesson, unless you’ve got an amazing reputation or the best business model since Twitter, “We don’t produce anything, but that won’t stop you,” be easily accessible (re: Budweiser, McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts) and be cheap.

--Captain Awesome, Copywriter

Read more...

2008’s Advertising I Just Didn’t Get (in no particular order)

Just in case something blew my mind on December 31st, I wanted to wait until the official end of 2008 to decide on what I felt were the year's most mind-dumbing campaigns. And after two weeks of meditation, I've chosen my top 13. Enjoy...or don't. And please, feel free to disagree...or add your own.

Taglines That Shouldn’t Have Been
“Drinkability”—Bud Light
So you can drink it. That means it’s not a solid or gas, which you would have to chew or breathe in. I understand it’s supposed to be tongue-in-cheek and silly, but it literally says nothing, and when compared to previous Bud Light ads/campaigns like “Real Men of Genius” or “Swear Jar,” it falls flat.

“Not Reality. Actuality.”—TruTV
What the frigg does that mean? So reality isn’t necessarily actual, but actual is real. This is like when I read Plato’s explanation of nothingness for a college physics class. Something cannot be nothing, but a nothing is a something. But you’re not gonna sell a comparison to Plato for the network that airs Party Heat and World’s Dumbest Criminals. How about something more accurate like “TruTV. More than just idiots who accidentally light themselves on fire.”

“The Future. Delicious.”—Microsoft
This is the tagline at the end of the panned Gates/Seinfeld Microsoft commercial. I first took this ad as an attempt to create an offbeat spot that appealed to the Mac crowd, and in trying to do so, failed miserably by using a comedian that hasn’t been relevant this century. It was later explained to me that the idea was really just to make Bill Gates more than a faceless voice in the sky behind the microchips. But “delicious?” What the frigg does “delicious” have to do with anything Microsoft is doing. The conversation Seinfeld and Gates were having was about shoes! Were they gonna eat the shoes? I think my original assessment was right.

“AT&T has plans for your business.”—AT&T Business Services
When you break it down, it makes sense. It simply gets across the point of the product and even notes that they have a variety of plans to choose from. However, it feels kind of cryptic and like it should be followed by “MUHHAAWAAAHHH!” AT&T, my business is officially scared.

“Thrillicious.”—SoBe Life Water
We’ve all tried to forget Naomi Campbell dancing with multi-colored lizards to Thriller. This spot had all of the makings of a bunch of people sitting around a table going, “Hey, let’s use Thriller. That song’s awesome.”

When another chimes in, “And let’s do the Thriller dance. I saw this hysterical wedding video.”

A third says, “No, let’s have lizards do the Thriller dance.”

And yet another goes, “But we totally need a super model.”

“How about Naomi Campbell? She’s beloved by everyone and has never assaulted a housekeeper or police officer.”

Now weird I can live with. People have different senses of humor. I personally love Gilbert Godfried. And maybe this was Campbell’s community service. But the final straw comes when the entire campaign is branded with the title of the song used for the particular spot, “Thrillicious.com.” Thrillicious.com was apparently a site with many comedic shorts always featuring the lizards drinking Life Water. I never knew this because the spot annoyed me so much I vowed never to support the product. Then, subsequent commercials still featured Campbell, the lizards and “Thrillicious”, but dropped the title track for Black Magic Woman, which makes even less sense! I can understand tying the product to the concept of thrilling and delicious, but now you’ve gone even further from your product and chosen a song about the future UFC fighter starring in your commercial. Sorry, I just didn’t get this.

“Saved by Zero”—Toyota

I’m sorry I put this song back in your head. And I guess I’m just not old enough to remember when this song was actually popular, but since when is 80s new wave something that puts people in a positive mood? I thought it was more associated with malaise and haircuts that would cause people to burn entire photo albums. Regardless, the blood is on Toyota’s hands. The data isn’t in, because the spot only stopped airing a month ago, but I’m sure you’ll see dozens of lawsuits in the coming months from the countless people who cut their ears off rather than listen to that jingle for the thousandth time.

“Nuggnutz”—McDonald’s
Okay, the first time anyone heard this, did they immediately think, Truck Nutz? Cause that’s what I think every time I hear it. And truck nuts don’t make me hungry.

“Windows. Life Without Walls”—Microsoft
Microsoft’s second entry on our list is the final tag to their version of “I’m a PC…” My problem is this. The product is Windows, but where do you put a window? In a wall. And where are most computers kept? Inside buildings…that have walls. So if life had no walls, we wouldn’t have many windows or computers. For a line that just got tacked on to the end of the spot, they could’ve come up with something simpler like, “Windows. Because you’re too lazy to learn how to use a Mac.”

Just Bad Ideas
“Don’t You Forget About Me”—JCPenny
Let’s use a song released in 1985 to advertise back-to-school shopping to kids who were born after 1990.

“What Is Love”—Diet Pepsi Max
Pepsi has put up a pretty poor showing at the last two Super Bowls, but this was the worst of the bunch. Pepsi Max will wake up tired people. Makes sense. By why will they bob their heads? Wouldn’t they just wake up? And why would you choose a song from an SNL skit that hasn’t been “L” in a decade? Somebody at Pepsi must owe Haddaway a big favor. I’m talking taking a prison shiv type of favor.

“How would you say LOL?/Thumbs”—AT&T
AT&T makes the list for a second time with the faces on the thumbs that talk while someone is texting. Just freakin’ creepy.

“Chicken For Breakfast/2008 Olympics”—McDonald’s
And McDonald's strikes again as well. First off, chicken can be for breakfast, but some northerners may not be familiar with dishes like biscuits and gravy or chicken ‘n waffles (aaaaahhhhh, chicken n’ waffles), but Olympic athletes pushing McDonald’s on me, come on? And who’s the first person who actually holds the sandwich in her hand? The 110 pound runner. Guys, why not be honest and just use a fat guy in a hockey jersey saying, “So good, you’ll sacrifice an artery.”

“Napoleon”—Garmin
So Napoleon kept his hand in his jacket because that’s where he put his GPS? Um, why was Napoleon, an 18th century French Emperor, driving a car through 21st century France? And furthermore, is Napoleon really the best spokesperson? Was Gilligan not available? I mean, when I think of Napoleon, successful is not the first word that comes to mind.

Like I said, feel free to disagree...or add your own.

--Captain Awesome, Copywriter

Read more...

The Intern Sweatshop: No Gold Medal For the Golden Arches

Olympics advertising is perhaps even more cutthroat than the annual media circus that is Super Bowl commercials. Chinese filmmaker Zhang Yimou got a reported $300 million to organize the Opening Ceremonies , and if you saw, they pulled out all the stops. Don’t worry, there haven’t been any wardrobe malfunctions (yet).

But when the Games aren’t on, it’s when commercials use the Olympic spirit to sell cameras, phones, and Oreos. Intercut with shots of the world’s finest competitors, either running the track or pole vaulting or back stroking. That’s all fine; I love me some doublestuffs, and it makes me kind of proud to buy something for the betterment of the world.

But then McDonald’s pulls the big one:


Right. Because no Olympic athlete’s diet is complete without a Big Mac and fries. I’m guessing Morgan Spurlock is going to try out for the decathlon in London ’12?

Of course, with the grueling training sessions these athletes endure, it’s likely they need orgasmic amounts of calorie intake, and a value meal will put over a thousand of those suckers in you right quick. For example, according to several sources Michael Phelps takes in nearly 12,000 calories a day. Do they all need to be deep-fried or sugar-laced though?

If that isn’t enough, the Beijing 2008 website also lists Snickers and Budweiser as commercial partners. You know, so the athletes are covered for their pregame sugar boosts and postgame “R&R,” respectively. Of course, that must be why.

Oh well, McDonald’s being the worldwide institution it is, would definitely not be absent from the Games. However, they are showing all the Olympians enjoying their Big Macs together, like kids in the school cafeteria. Well, let’s just hope one of them brought a healthy yogurt or bean sprout sandwich to trade.

In the end, I understand that’s smart advertising. 39.5 million viewers tuned-in to watch Michael Phelps swimming the 200-meter butterfly last Tuesday, and 39.9 million watched Phelps win his eighth gold medal in the men's 4X100 meter medley relay Saturday night. And that may not even include the many who watched on the Times Square Jumotron and the more than 70,000 (ed. note: Minus 55,000, give or take. But who's counting, right?) who watched from M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, Md., Phelp's home town.

But it still puts a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended, have you eaten at McDonald’s recently). Then again, I’m not sprinting the 400 meter individual medley after wolfing down a Quarter Pounder. If you’re feeling the irony as well, wash it down with this Coca Cola ad. Yes, it’s still selling a product through the Olympics, but at least this ad makes an effort to promote cultural understanding and not world-class athletes hawking burgers or chicken sandwiches with 1000+ mg of sodium…and pickles.

--Aditya Desai, Intern

Previously fabricated under duress in the Intern Sweatshop: Missile FAIL.

Read more...

McDonald’s Hopes to Skim Latte Lovers from Starbucks

Looks like McDonald’s is really serious about McCafé, their new coffee house-styled restaurant concept. So serious that they’re gearing up to make a run at Starbucks’ customer base with it. They’ve revamped their menu and stockpiled it with more affordable coffee drinks, in addition to renovating their restaurants to skew more upscale. But there’s one problem: It’s still McDonald’s.

Starbucks is about the experience as much as it is about the coffee. People feel good with that warm cup in their hands. Whether you’re a school teacher, executive VP, or a bag boy at the local grocery store, you feel like you’ve tapped into something special when you throw down five bucks for that venti Foamalacious Whiptasticular Awesomecino with skim-soy-goat milk. You feel like Somebody. And you want other people to know you feel like Somebody, too, so you plop down on a cozy leather sofa with your laptop (I can’t afford a laptop, so I bring an Etch-a-Sketch) and you get to work tap-tap-tapping out the next great American novel (or etch-a-sketch-sketching a mean staircase) while the musical stylings of Thelonius Monk echo from the rafters. In a Starbucks, the alchemy of ambience and caffeine inspire us to be more than the sum of our parts.

In a 2005 interview, Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz put it this way:

“I can best describe it by stating that we are not in the coffee business serving people, but in the people business serving coffee. The equity of the Starbucks brand is the humanity and intimacy of what goes on in the communities that exist in each and every location. We continually are reminded of the powerful need and desire for human contact and for community, which is a new, powerful force in determining consumer choices.”

My McDonald’s experience, on the other hand, generally trends in the other direction. Whether it’s the homeless guy sifting through his hobo paraphernalia in the booth next to the Playland jungle gym or the semi-comatose counter kid who operates the McFlurry machine like he’s trying to diffuse a bomb underwater, I’ve noticed that McDonald’s restaurants have a “dynamic” all their own . Sure, I’m still Somebody at McDonald’s, but it’s usually that Somebody who’s wondering why he decided to eat at McDonald’s. And that’s why I’m skeptical of McCafé. It’s so opposite of the core McDonald’s brand. It’s less about the experience and more about the end result—getting food in my stomach as quickly as possible (and then getting the hell out of there before I get stabbed by a drifter or a party of eight year olds doped up on trans-fats and high-fructose corn syrup).

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate McDonald's. It serves its purpose, and I've contributed more than my fair share to its multi-billion burger tally. But when it comes to making the coffee house work on the same level as a Starbucks, I’m doubtful McDonald’s can get out of the way of its own brand. It’s developed into a cultural icon—and not in the wholesome baseball-apple pie way, either. Sociologists bemoan the McDonaldization of our civilization. It’s been stigmatized so much so that “Mc” has become the prefix of mediocrity: McMansions, McJob, McPaper, McDermott—see, the list goes on. Adding a latte and changing out your furniture won’t scare Starbucks. Consumers’ emotional connections have a longer memory than the marketing execs may want to admit. There are images from past visits to McDonald’s that continue to haunt me to this day.

My two cents: Use all the effort, the money, the creativity that they’ve been pumping into retrofitting these franchises with McCafés, and simply create a new brand from scratch—and then keep it as far away from the McDonald’s brand as possible. If a marketing guy even suggests sticking “Mc” in front of anything, send him to work a fry line somewhere in Toledo for six months. Make this brand the un-McDonald’s.

Or, better yet, buy out Caribou Coffee. They have free wi-fi and ottomans upholstered to look like stuffed bears. Now there’s a primo place to etch-a-sketch.

M.M. McDermott, McCopywriter

Read more...

How to Get Your Kids to Eat Their Veggies

The concepts of brand awareness and brand loyalty do not just apply to the masses of adults who do things a certain way because that’s the way they like it. Kids are learning quickly the art of sticking to their guns when it comes to their favorites, and now there’s proof.

Kids have their favorite foods (hotdogs, pizza, candy, etc.); they have their favorite toys, blankets, you name it; but now they have their favorite packaging.

For generations, parents have tried everything to force Brussels sprouts down their children’s throats. Today, kids would much rather take a McDonald’s wrapper off their food and sink their teeth into whatever lies beneath – hamburger, fries, apple pie or maybe even carrots.

Lately, McDonald’s has been making an effort to promote better health and eating for today’s youth with low-fat milk, white meat and apples, but what if they could get little Johnny to choke down those greens?

Well according to U.S. researchers, McDonald’s wrappings might just be able to help trick those kids into eating what they have for so long fought against. Ok, that’s not the way they put it, but a new study says 60 percent of the kids between 3 and 5 preferred carrots and other foods when wrapped in McDonald’s packaging, as opposed to those in generic packaging. The catch? There was no difference. The carrots were the same in both packages, yet 60 percent of the kids said that the McDonald’s carrots tasted better.

So, what are we to get from all of this? I say one of two things. 1 – Mc Donald’s is one of the most phenomenal players in the branding world (which is hard to dispute) and we as consumers have let ourselves and our children not only walk into their trap, but walk in with bells and whistles. Or, 2 – it might mean that it is possible to stop forcing vegetables down our kids’ throats and just sit back and watch them stuff it in their own mouths.

Like everything else in life, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Is this a bad thing, or is it a back door to the problem that has faced caring parents for generations? It all comes down to the parents. Either they are willing to let there kids eat anything in a McDonald’s wrapper as long as they eat their vegetables, or they are going to stand strong to the “no dessert until you eat your peas” persuasion.

--Nick Piche, Copywriter

Read more...