DS Forums

 
 

Pants Man!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23-04-2009, 18:15
Bob22A
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,744
I thought it was an okay idea, better than anyone else came up with. The only idea Phill shouted down was Lorraine's crap about Apple Sue. Apple Sue?!? It doesn't rhyme, it doesn't illiterate, it doesn't play on any ideas. It's an apple with a woman's name.

Well if that was the best idea they could come up with they are in serious trouble.

The only people that thought the idea was funny and made sense were the team themselves.

The idea was not funny and had zero relevence to the product
Bob22A is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 23-04-2009, 19:40
Rose34
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,142
Oh dear, Pants Man was indeed pants. I was actually thinking, possibly for the first time, that I couldn't watch when they went to do the presentation.

I was surprised with the advert though, it was pretty good, and the idea could have worked if it had more of a connection with the cereal... and that box!!!! All in all, it was just cringeworthy!!!
Rose34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2009, 19:42
Rose34
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,142
Well, I have to say that I'm five months pregnant and I would never in this life buy a breakfast cereal for my son that is advertised by a "superhero" called "Pantsman".

Like Surallun said, it'd be funny if it had benn presented in a Harry Enfield or perhaps Dick and Dom programme, some sort of surreal environment. But to sell breakfast cereal? Never!

It was one of worst ideas ever presented on The Apprentice, without a doubt. Absolutely cringeworthy, embarassing. I couldn't look at the telly when the pants thing was on :s

Haha, that's exactly what I just said - I was physically cringeing!!!! I liked Phillip before that too... now I'll always see him as Pants-Man's creator!!!!
Rose34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2009, 19:46
Sylvia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 14,231
Haha, that's exactly what I just said - I was physically cringeing!!!! I liked Phillip before that too... now I'll always see him as Pants-Man's creator!!!!
So will I. It rivals Ben's cringeworthy 'rabbit's wotsit' remark.
Sylvia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2009, 19:50
nessyfencer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Loony fae Aberdeen
Posts: 8,195
I think that they missed their target audience. No, not the kids... they thought that was their target audience, but it wasn't. It was the panel and Sir Amiga. I mean - green so it stands out on the shelf. It was puke green too. But it didn't need to stand out, as it was never going on a shelf. They should have stuck quite close to what's already on the market.
nessyfencer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2009, 20:41
urt31
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,339
It was really ridiculous. No kid puts their pants over their trousers anyway so eating that cereal will not make them change or do anything different.
But that is the thing, if you had listened to Mona's fantastic presentation you would understand that "you can't wear your pants over your clothes because you are not pantsman and only pantsman can get away with wearing his pants over his clothes. Therefore the aim of our advert is to demonstrate that you are not and never will be pantsman therefore you should eat our cereal as it reminds you that your pants belong under your clothes."

Pure magic.
urt31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2009, 20:44
Angrysquirrel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 90
But that is the thing, if you had listened to Mona's fantastic presentation you would understand that "you can't wear your pants over your clothes because you are not pantsman and only pantsman can get away with wearing his pants over his clothes. Therefore the aim of our advert is to demonstrate that you are not and never will be pantsman therefore you should eat our cereal as it reminds you that your pants belong under your clothes."

Pure magic.
Haha yeah. Was genius.
Angrysquirrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2009, 21:03
lady_xanax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,042
Pants Man was a pants idea.
It was never going to work and should have been dismissed straight away.
I much prefered Pirate parrot, it was well thought out and had some good ideas there with the treasure hunting etc.
Agree. Why would you want to associate pants with your breakfast?! And as a parent I wouldn't want my child encouraged to wear their pants over their trousers!

Howard's performance as the dad was unconvincing.
lady_xanax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2009, 00:49
mr.bojangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wales, Oxford, and Germany
Posts: 974
But that is the thing, if you had listened to Mona's fantastic presentation you would understand that "you can't wear your pants over your clothes because you are not pantsman and only pantsman can get away with wearing his pants over his clothes. Therefore the aim of our advert is to demonstrate that you are not and never will be pantsman therefore you should eat our cereal as it reminds you that your pants belong under your clothes."

Pure magic.
I think I figured all this out.

Pantsman was essentially getting annoyed that all these buffoons started putting on their pants over their trousers. Which for Pantsman is unbearable. Only he can wear pants that way (cue Mona), because - well - he is Pantsman. Pantsman therefore brewed up this special cereal formula to make sure everyone put their pants on the right way so they couldn't steal his pants-wearing thunder nad then hired a crack team of advertisers to pipe this subliminal message into people's homes. Suggesting in fact, that Pantsman is somewhat of a spoilsport. The fun those cheeky chaps were having with their pants on OVER their clothes. Ho ho ho. Pantsman selfishly wanted this pleasure all to himself.

Pantsman's flaw is however in depending on people eating his special formula before changing out of their pyjamas. Otherwise he's screwed and has led the world through his outwardly smiley persona into his hedonistic world of insane pants-wearing.
mr.bojangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2009, 10:31
Piper E
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sunny Surrey
Posts: 1,570
Urgh! The way Mona was trying to be funny at the conference! "Only superheros are allowed to put their pants on the wrong way" wtf!
Piper E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2009, 10:41
MrsBraz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 40
All I can think it is the whole thing beggars belief. It's beyond any sort of explanation.

LIke Nick said, they took logic and tortured until screamed...
MrsBraz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2009, 13:08
Zebs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Kent
Posts: 507
Does anyone else wish there was an "extended episode" where they show/tell you what ideas were rejected?
They must have been really bad in order to go with this pantsman thing.

I really just didnt understand it.

Love,

Margaret Mountford
Zebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2009, 14:13
Kromm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,038
Anybody else think this should of won? Ok so the box was rubbish, but the advert was fun, and the tune was catchy. The other teams advert was so dull!
No.

If Pants Man isn't the stupidest adverting idea ever created, it's at least in the top ten stupidest. It ignores the fact that there's a difference between an idea being "juvenile" and one being for young children. Stuffing firecrakers into a garbage can and exploding them on someone's lawn? That's juvenile. And it may or may not be a child doing it--its just the level of emotional immaturity that makes it that way. Pants Man is just like that. It's like fart jokes. Would you make a cereal commercial based around fart jokes?

A talking parrot in a pirate hat? That's for young children. It's independent of the child's level of maturity and is aimed more at their imagination. Sure, its a cliche. But children aren't adults. Cliches work for them. Trying to be TOO clever and presenting them with something inappropriate under some false impression that the "originality" will somehow make up for the inappropriateness isn't the way to go with advertising to kids--at least not to ones as young as the ones shown in the commercial (older kids wouldn't be happy with EITHER of these campaigns, frankly).

On top of the sheer inappropriateness of Pants Man, the link to "breakfast" is pretty thin too. It's a real stretch building a whole campaign over the juvenile notion that if you don't eat your cereal, you might put your clothes on in reverse order.

Also, anyone who thinks the color of that box looked good needs to get his or her eyes examined.

It's worth noting that aiming a campaign at older kids MIGHT have worked. Very few cereals market to teenagers--its a relatively untapped market. Or even pre-teens. Those kids who increasingly consider themselves too sophisticated for "kiddie stuff" with typical cartoon mascots, but who buy into a whole sub-culture created around their own age group.

It's what I would have tried if I'd been in their shoes and absent any other really good suggestion. If a mascot was absolutely mandated, make it more anime-ish, because pre-teens and teens would identify with that more. Market to the notion that these kids THINK they are grown up, and cater towards the things unique to that age group (in the US that would be Hannah Montana, the Nintendo Wii, High School Musical, and things of that nature--whatever the current UK equivalents are would be your target for Sir Alan...)
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2009, 16:43
Magic8Ball
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,467
Those kids who increasingly consider themselves too sophisticated for "kiddie stuff" with typical cartoon mascots, but who buy into a whole sub-culture created around their own age group.

[...]

Market to the notion that these kids THINK they are grown up, and cater towards the things unique to that age group (in the US that would be Hannah Montana, the Nintendo Wii, High School Musical, and things of that nature--whatever the current UK equivalents are would be your target for Sir Alan...)
I can see it now...

Reclaim da street wiv this cere-al
they're Happy flakes, they ain't funere-al
steppin' out in ya pants
in da neighbourhood
makin' Happy flakes your breakfast food.
Safe!

(to be sung with attitude and your trousers hanging down about your knees, baseball caps on back to front, and plenty of Elizabeth Duke jewellery)

Cereal is about reclaiming the STREET. Uh huh. (nods) Fo' real.
Magic8Ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2009, 17:09
mr.bojangles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wales, Oxford, and Germany
Posts: 974
I can see it now...

Reclaim da street wiv this cere-al
they're Happy flakes, they ain't funere-al
steppin' out in ya pants
in da neighbourhood
makin' Happy flakes your breakfast food.
Safe!

(to be sung with attitude and your trousers hanging down about your knees, baseball caps on back to front, and plenty of Elizabeth Duke jewellery)

Cereal is about reclaiming the STREET. Uh huh. (nods) Fo' real.
Ha! Jamie is no doubt eating them already.
mr.bojangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2009, 00:40
Futuring
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 293
I'm just suprised that Sir Alan didn't make a pun about it.

Well it's too late for the bladdy wake up call now isn't it?
Futuring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2009, 00:53
GratingCheese
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,485
Another problem with Phillip's idea; "pants" is traditionally an alternative reference to trousers. Using "pants" to refer to underwear is a bastardisation (for once, the Americans have it right). The term "underpants" is more appropriate.
GratingCheese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2009, 08:40
peely
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,860
I thought the advert was funny, but I couldn't see the logic of the concept, or the song. It was all counter-intuitive. I didn't know what their target market was. The box was just ludicrous.
peely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2009, 08:46
LadyMinerva
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 745
What amazaes me is that Mona has a child and Nooral is a teacher....why didn't they both counter the idea? Instead we see them going round the room voting for Pants Man!
LadyMinerva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2009, 08:47
quelquechose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 385
In other words the whole thing was


PANTS



quelquechose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2009, 16:11
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Anybody else think this should of won?
Not as it was done, no. I do wonder what might have happened if they had sent Lorraine home after the first half hour. The core idea of using humour was OK, and even the pants theme might have been developed into something better. If they'd just stuck with Pants Man as was, the time saved by not having Lorraine's negativity could have been used to produce a good box. With a weak theme, but good box and good advert, they'd have had a chance. (Although maybe not with Mona's presentation.)

Of course they really needed Kate's team to screw up, which didn't really happen. Kate's team had a good theme, good box but weak advert. So it would have been more even, but I think Kate would probably still have won.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:10.