Have you seen the AOL ad with their feature to pop up a message when you're getting a call? (I assume they're really intercepting call-waiting) (surely they can't do this with all modems)

They chose to put two teenage girls in danger.

I like to think what the ad writers were thinking.

Let's see, we could go over the top and put some menacing figure in the background. That would really put them in danger! But even if they got through to dad, he wouldn't get there in time. Or we could have them in a car wreck - ditto. No, we have to put them in danger-light, something that puts a parent into concern but not "real" danger, which complicates the ad and steals the spotlight from the product message. So we put them outside a mall with car trouble.

Already the ad is chock-full of message, and we're only three seconds in. This is an important aspect of the modern TV commercial. A TON of information has to be packed into 30 seconds. You do have to be entertained and intrigued and remain an active viewer. So the ad producer can't waste any part of the frame or the audio, and it all has to boil down to the perfect pitch.

To put the girls in a tougher situation, in that first three seconds you'll pick up a wolf howl. Not wasting bandwidth, they pack a little bit of information into the audio to reinforce the idea that it's late at night, the girls are alone, and there are scary monsters in the dark.

The girls are not pretty; these are intended to be precisely typical teens. The ad has to appeal to both the teenage AOL addict and the alarmed adult parent. The lead girl is prepared with a cell phone. She annouces the key dramatic message "neither... does... dad" with pinpoint precision. That probably took 100 takes. The authoritative teenaged girl has a car, a phone, a friend and a shopping trip... everything but a responsive dad. Thus the teen appeal.

Dad is not pretty either. This stuff doesn't happen by accident, it's casting. Dad is web surfing and has found the dumbest site on earth and is pleased. The site has an animation of a fish or something, and a caption "get your lure on". If you look really quickly and closely you find that the site's name is a-lure.com. The quickie message, the one you got but didn't think about, is that without AOL, Dad is stuck surfing the stupidest sites known. The hidden message, the one that is so tiny it should be considered subliminal, is that Dad's worst fear has come about: he was surfing porn and forgot about the kids.

AOL can't make that statement; it would be highly inappropriate of them to make that statement. But in a produced ad, there's not a single frame that hasn't been considered in incredible depth. So they don't make the statement; they just do, in a way that nobody could possibly suggest would be AOL making a statement. In the end, it's just a little tidbit that draws you into the ad and keeps you looking at it for the 30th time you've seen it.

And the final audio cue - without saying anything, the last moment of the ad has a thunderclap. All that stuff in 30 seconds, it's really remarkable if you think about it.

This ad has a ton going for it. But there's a problem. At the very same time, AOL is "repackaging" itself with that AOL Broadband campaign. So now they've got all these "Wow" ads running at the same time as the older-style, less-slick ads featuring non-pretty people. ("Wow" was introduced with Sharon Stone. Looking very pretty.) This ad highlights a clumsy feature of dialup AOL.

You know they had to pay Ms. Stone a ton, so it's not clear why they want to spoil their bright new wowwy wow-wow campaign with this old spot featuring old clunky technologies and a fearsome tale. Get AOL, or the girl gets eaten by a wolf. Your choice.

I'm also a big fan of advertising. (I once worked for an advertising sales company, and entertained dreams of working for a copywriter. As you all know, I now work in a nuthouse)

I watch the Super Bowl religiously for the ads. The game usually isn't that interesting, but boy, I sure look forward to finding out what the e-trade monkey is going to do, or if there's going to be any standout ads that I'll love during the superbowl, but come to hate over the next six months of incessant repetition.

(I STILL love the Budwiser 9-11 tribute ad with the 12 horse hitching bowing down to the NYC skyline)

I suppose part of it is that I love to be entertained, even while I'm being sold to, and the more clever the ad the better.

And the difference is....?:D

$$$ ;)

:thumb:

Pretty interesting stuff UT.

I always love the ads (whether TV or radio) where they try to make it sound like they are interviewing random people on the street. Like the one for shampoo or something (shows how well the ad worked on me) where the guy was running around with a sink and getting people to let him wash their hair. Geez, gimme a break already. I wonder how many people these sorts of ads actually fool.

Enough that it's frightening to consider.

I don't think they care if you're fooled or not as long as they get your attention.

So if deconstructing ads make them not work on you, what DOES work on someone so hardened? Take a look at Ad Age --- the answer, it seems, is sex, or at least pictures of attractive women.

What works on me, more than anything else, is a well-designed, easy-to-use web site with good information.

What works on you?

Hey, we got two out of three. :D

Why, I oughta!

You can't, because you only control two out of three.:p