[cityprod]

Originally Posted by Richard O'Hagan

Not necessarily, it depends on the objective.

The aim here was probably to get the number to stick in the heads of blonde/dippy PAs, and I bet it has. The product is just a commodity, so quality isn't an issue.

Seriously, if the ad had any other objective than to increase the number of people calling the number and increase revenue for the company, then they wasted their budget.

If the ad had aired on one of the Heart stations, I would probably have come to the same conclusion. However, it aired on Gold, which attracts generally an older audience and broader in demographic terms.

[chandleo]

The one that annoys me the most is that awful Stena Line advert where they talk about people having a 'Carcation' awful made up word that makes me want to change stations immediately and it's played so often, you can't escape from it!

I mean 1 - ridiculous made up word
And 2 we're not American, we don't say vacation, we say holiday!

[Harris Tweed]

On the Dan O'Day/30 year out-of-date thing:

An advert that sells is certainly a good one. And of course that's the ultimate aim. But in a converged advertising/marketing world, I'm not sure other results aren't valid in between "hear ad > purchase".

In this case, I'm not going to call *any* directory inquiry service on hearing an ad, because I don't need a phone number at that moment. So the aim of the ad is to make sure that when I do need one, that's the number I remember. Others might encourage me to Like a Facebook page or enter a competition (so I can be sold more stuff over the longer-term).

I can't tell you whether this ad will be effective because I don't think I've EVER used a directories service since it stopped being free.

However, I can think of other firms who might get my business on the back of ads they ran 20 years ago with the phone number in.

[Mapperley Ridge]

Originally Posted by cityprod

Your snarkiness is totally unwarranted.

Know the rules, know which rules to break, know how to break them, know when to break them, know why to break them.

A style guide is merely that. A guide. It's not set entirely in stone.

As is yours.

So let's look at this again. This ad breaks one of Dan O Day's rules.

But in your mind, it's broken the rules in the wrong way.

What makes your view of "the rules" any more valid than someone else's? I've presented an alternative view, which says I reckon this type of ad gets attention, therefore it's done the majority of its work already.

You're arguing that it gets attention in "the wrong way". Again, in your mind only. That's an opinion, not a fact.

[cityprod]

Originally Posted by Mapperley Ridge

As is yours.

So let's look at this again. This ad breaks one of Dan O Day's rules.

But in your mind, it's broken the rules in the wrong way.

What makes your view of "the rules" any more valid than someone else's? I've presented an alternative view, which says I reckon this type of ad gets attention, therefore it's done the majority of its work already.

You're arguing that it gets attention in "the wrong way". Again, in your mind only. That's an opinion, not a fact.

Mapperley, you seem to have forgotten something.

" ...I've heard on Gold a number of times, and always makes me switch off."

"... its just very annoying , cant stand it, i change the station and dont tune back..."

"...It motivates me to act. That act is to press a button on the car radio to switch stations instantly."

Any ad, whether it's 118434, Persil or MoneySupermarket.com, or GoCompare, any ad that provokes that kind of a reaction in a listener, is one that ultimately breaks the golden rule of radio advertising.

'Do nothing that will drive potential customers away.'

The ad doesn't motivate the listener to use the service, it motivates the listener to switch off. That is the cardinal sin of radio advertising. As bad as dead air.

There are thousands of ads out there that don't motivate me to use their service or buy their product, but equally, I'm not motivated to switch off or switch over to another station.

Any ad that motivates a listener to switch off or switch over to another station, has failed to sell, in the worst way possible. That's not an opinion, that's accepted wisdom in the radio advertising industry.

[Mapperley Ridge]

Originally Posted by cityprod

Mapperley, you seem to have forgotten something.

" ...I've heard on Gold a number of times, and always makes me switch off."

"... its just very annoying , cant stand it, i change the station and dont tune back..."

"...It motivates me to act. That act is to press a button on the car radio to switch stations instantly."

Any ad, whether it's 118434, Persil or MoneySupermarket.com, or GoCompare, any ad that provokes that kind of a reaction in a listener, is one that ultimately breaks the golden rule of radio advertising.

'Do nothing that will drive potential customers away.'
.

Three posts on an internet forum.

Yep. The future of radio advertising starts now. You read it here first...

[cityprod]

Originally Posted by Mapperley Ridge

Three posts on an internet forum.

Three posts that happened to describe people's real reactions to real radio adverts.

[Terry Purvis]

I think the issue here lies with the client/agency and their scheduling of the copy. Advertisements like the ones referred to have a short "shelf-life" after which they cease to be amusing and instead become an annoyance, thereby self-defeating the original intent. Such obvious attempts at "in-your-face" humour must be used sparingly in order to be truly effective. The same can be said for "novelty" songs on the radio.

Personally I want to throw a brick at whatever I'm watching/listening to when I see/hear a "Go Compare" advertisement, too many too often, but that's just my opinion.

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by cityprod

Three posts that happened to describe people's real reactions to real radio adverts.

But you - as a former (?) radio professional (?) - will presumably listen to the radio far more intently and far more often than many listeners, and what may therefore seem intrusive or over the top to you may be what's necessary to catch the ear of a more casual listener.

Of course, no advertisers tries to create a campaign that gets people switching off the radio. But a campaign that has a high impact to some may alienate more critical listeners.

It's not as black and white as saying "It annoys me, therefore it is universally annoying".

[cityprod]

Originally Posted by Bingethink

But you - as a former (?) radio professional (?) - will presumably listen to the radio far more intently and far more often than many listeners, and what may therefore seem intrusive or over the top to you may be what's necessary to catch the ear of a more casual listener.

More often, maybe. More intently? Only when I'm engaged in listening to a station for research purposes. Most of the time, I listen to the radio, because I enjoy it.

Of course, no advertisers tries to create a campaign that gets people switching off the radio. But a campaign that has a high impact to some may alienate more critical listeners.

No, but it's not hard to tell what happened here. The creative agency who came up with the ad, fell in love with the ad's concept early on. After production, they didn't listen back to it with any form of critical ear. They probably didn't do any testing on it either.

It's not as black and white as saying "It annoys me, therefore it is universally annoying".

Maybe this is a reflection on the differing standards between what I was taught, and what's considered acceptable today, but I was taught that if one listener switches off or over because of something that aired, that that was 2 people too many.

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by cityprod

Maybe this is a reflection on the differing standards between what I was taught, and what's considered acceptable today, but I was taught that if one listener switches off or over because of something that aired, that that was 2 people too many.

That seems to me to be the kind of thinking that can only lead to bland, inoffensive common denominator radio!

[bigd558]

"30 year old advice from radio "gurus" like Dan O Day".

Human nature doesn't change. If it was good advice 30 years ago its still good advice.

One of the worst things about commercial radio is the poor quality of the ads. They are done on the cheap, and they sound like it. Talented scriptwriters, actors and jingle writers all cost money.

As for "Go Compare", it makes me change channels and actively discourages me from buying the product.

[Talizman]

Originally Posted by cityprod

An advert is not designed to be remembered, an advert is designed to get you to use the service or buy the product.

No, it isn't. An advert's job is to raise brand awareness. It doesn't matter too much to the agency whether you buy the product or not - that's the job of the company selling the product. They then hope to sell you the product by showing you how much your life will improve if you buy it.

An example would be Go Compare. Yes they have the most annoying adverts however they have a service (comparing the prices of one of life's 'necessary evils') so the chances are even people who detest the opera guy with a passion would end up having a look on the site to get prices even if they use it last.

Incidentally the most annoying advert I've heard is on 96.4 The Wave and Swansea Sound for a company that buys gold in Swansea Market.

The premise is the manager of the story asks 'customers' what they think of the place and how much money they came away with. Initially that was just about bearable but the follow-up adverts had the guy ending the 'conversation' asking the customers if they now believe the people in the adverts were 'real' customers and what would they say to other listeners who thought they were stooges.

Now until they started doing that, I was happy to believe the customers they were using were genuine but since they put the thought in my mind that they could be actors, that's all I can think of when I hear the adverts, especially since recently the 'customers' in the ads speak with extra "er....." and "...um....".

Now THAT is what I call an epic failure.

[Terry Purvis]

Originally Posted by Talizman

No, it isn't. An advert's job is to raise brand awareness. It doesn't matter too much to the agency whether you buy the product or not - that's the job of the company selling the product. They then hope to sell you the product by showing you how much your life will improve if you buy it.

The "job" of an advertisement is mainly: "to encourage or persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group of people) to continue or take some new action. Most commonly, the desired result is to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering . . "

See this article from Wikipedi for more detail about an advertisement.

You'll find the agency cares very much about you buying the product, it's their job, to make the commercial work!

[cityprod]

Originally Posted by Talizman

No, it isn't. An advert's job is to raise brand awareness. It doesn't matter too much to the agency whether you buy the product or not.

No, but it matters to the company that commissioned the agency to produce the ad.

Funny enough, some companies do believe that an advert's job is to raise brand awareness. Usually, radio ads that are produced to raise brand awareness, tend not to be rebooked.

Hmm, I wonder why...

[darkknight77]

One thing I'll say on this subject, I didn't have any directory enquiries number hard-wired into my memory, but after reading this thread, I know know 118434 without trying.

Job of the ad was done, and I didn't even hear it! I'd wager the O/P has complained about it, naming the full number to several other people too, who will all have the number in their head next time they do need a directory enquiries number quickly. You ARE an ad mans dream.

[Talizman]

Originally Posted by Terry Purvis

The "job" of an advertisement is mainly: "to encourage or persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group of people) to continue or take some new action. Most commonly, the desired result is to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering . . "

See this article from Wikipedi for more detail about an advertisement.

You'll find the agency cares very much about you buying the product, it's their job, to make the commercial work!

Quote wiki as much as you want - I worked in advertising for a year. The 'desired result' is obviously to increase sales however the idea of an advert is to grab your attention.

A good example is with the weight-loss supplement 'Adios'. The adverts were great, it made everyone talk about it however the product turned out to be crap. That's not the problem of the ad agency. Their job was to get people to notice this latest 'miracle' treatment.

[cityprod]

Originally Posted by darkknight77

One thing I'll say on this subject, I didn't have any directory enquiries number hard-wired into my memory, but after reading this thread, I know know 118434 without trying.

Job of the ad was done, and I didn't even hear it! I'd wager the O/P has complained about it, naming the full number to several other people too, who will all have the number in their head next time they do need a directory enquiries number quickly. You ARE an ad mans dream.

So over the years, you haven't seen all the 118 118 ads, or BT's ads for 118 500 "give me 500", or heard the often repeated on commercial radio ads for the IRN owned Maureen 118 212?

[cityprod]

Originally Posted by Bingethink

That seems to me to be the kind of thinking that can only lead to bland, inoffensive common denominator radio!

If that was your only attitude towards commercial radio, then yes.

However, there are many other reasons why listeners switch off their radios, and thankfully content of any kind that provokes someone to switch off is very rare. And there's lots of content available that can fit the description of inoffensive, far more than would be offensive.

[Bingethink]

Originally Posted by cityprod

content of any kind that provokes someone to switch off is very rare.

On the contrary. For me:

Thought For The Day.

You and Yours.

Olly Murs.

Alan Green.

Robbie Savage.

etc etc

It doesn't have to be "offensive" to be a switch-off.

[Mapperley Ridge]

The issue here is - in my view - Cityprod has got it into his own head that he doesn't like this particular advert. Therefore he believes that everyone else will think it's crap. Anyone who disagrees is clearly a moron.

Even when others try to broaden the argument out. - and talk about the many differing schools of thought on the subject - their views are equally inavalid.

Now I can only draw two possible conclusions from this. Either Cityprod is a radio advertising genius, or he's a former radio person (jock/salesman/manager) who has a few long standing grudges about the industry.