Sugar has posted this video ad for the emailer on Twitter,
http://bit.ly/aphXJu. I think it's really distasteful, and got me wondering what would the reaction be if a team presented that in an ad task?

I wonder if that was one of the ads created on the apprentice this year (s6).

OMG yeah he did put that in the public arena Tues lunchtime.
'Here is my first viral advert, cheaper than a TV campaign!'
later adding
'@SamWare89 not my fault love I didnt dream it up it was those young cool people who claim to know what people want to see'
yeah but as the client, you signed it off! i.e agreed and paid

Must date from 2003 as that was when they launched the videophone version of the emailer. Still listed if you are mad
http://www.amstrad.com/products/emailers/emp.html
another view from 2001
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10...igns_over_sir/
More recently (other reviews are available)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amstrad-Emai.../dp/B000L43KMA

Back slightly OT, yeah it's cheap isn't it? Very ill advised as I thought the chief market they were going for was older people who were nervous of a full blown pc/laptop i.e. your mum or grandmother. Well that is sooo going to appeal!

Fully OT, yes he did have a go on the first task (?) of S3 when the girls' team decided to add to their total by 'selling kisses'. Yeah but Sugar, they didn't get their t'ts out did they? Memory fail you?
I'm sure if Ben Clarke (bless) had had his way, Sugar woould have got the hump for the purposes of televison

But lets face it, Amstrad advertising is as related to VW advertising as Norfolk is to the Alps. Don't forget though they got the all important product shot in
Raef: Yes one can see that this is superior as the product is shown clearly and is not overshadowed by the ladies errrr mammary glands.
Micheal: the t#ts were wholely MY idea, SurAlan

Must date from 2003 as that was when they launched the videophone version of the emailer. Still listed if you are mad
http://www.amstrad.com/products/emailers/emp.html
another view from 2001
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10...igns_over_sir/
More recently (other reviews are available)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amstrad-Emai.../dp/B000L43KMA



So that is an old ad then, so why has he resurrected it now?Probably thinks it makes him look cool with his new found sleazy friends, Twonk Morgan, and Scumbag Clifford.
I remember when Sugar went off on one at Ruth, and her
team for the Amsair ad? Sugar said, he thought Nick had given him one of his porn tapes by mistake when he watch their ad, as he thought it was like Debbie does Dallas. Had he forgot about the Emailer ad?

I not forgotten about that ad, with the actor seeming to enjoy himself..hehhe Couldn't remember Sugar's response though

Yes must be an old ad. No idea why he'd draw attention to it now. I certainly wouldn't. Guess he doesn't believe his own sh'it doesn't smell lol He totally believes his own PR. It's tragic

Oh so it's older? No wonder that Sugar videophone didn't sell. He was clearly desperate to get it sold, and he would probably come up with anything to try to market it, but it didn't pay off. He probably regrets it now (I hope).

Still, it is something along the lines of what some of the apprentices (esp. Ben or Syed, maybe Raef) would come up with!

I was slightly wrong, the E3 Superphone was launched on the 15th Sept 2004 priced at £100. In March 2005, priced reduced to £49.95. That's the date of the latest news on the Amserve website.
http://www.amserve.co.uk/news.html

By August 2006 Tescos were selling them for £15
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...d.php?t=237798

I saw that the ad budget for the E3 launch was £2 million. That would be TV ads and tabloid newspaper ads as well. The viral ad was probably 'about a fiver'. Guess the male actors waived their fees, such is the power of t'ts.

Sugar himself posted that they had sold 500,000. That could be all versions and would be UK sales only as it doesn't work abroad. That's roughly 1 in 50 homes. Anyone seen one being used? However, they make their money not on the product (which is sold at a loss) but on the call charges and the advertising. If though, people buy it, or worse buy it cheap, then quickly decide stop using it, the profit forecast won't happen. As it was launched too late to compete with more versatile technologies like broadband, mobiles, Skype, etc, it struggled. Many customers had better options already. The smaller the active user base, the less attractive it becomes for advertisers.

The Amscreen network is using a similar business model except that the advertisers pay for all of it (as I understand) . It's basically like the free local newspapers. Only it's moving and you've a captive and bored audience, waiting rooms and check out queues. Look at the shiney shiney

Actually the e-m@iler was advertising the products and companies that would kill it.

http://www.amserve.co.uk/news_techbrand.html March 2005

Trumpets the 6 month deal with Carphone Warehouse and 1 month deals with Orange and Dell. Amserve, I think they knew something you didn't.

'Simon Sugar, Amstrad Commercial Director, said: "Our own research shows that the majority of our customers are used to technology and are always looking for the best technology deals. Our customers will be able to get some great deals with these well-known retailers' Yes, they did

Moral of the e-m@iler story: don't share your customers with your bigger competitors. Or you will be giving them away.

It was Paul's team that won that ad task for Amsair with the bloke who looked like he was rubbing himself off, but it was Ruth's ad that Sugar was annoyed about because it looked like porn.

[QUOTEStill, it is something along the lines of what some of the apprentices (esp. Ben or Syed, maybe Raef) would come up with! [/quote]

The truth is, they would have got a right bollocking from Sugar for coming up with an ad like that, yet he gave the green light, and paid for that emailer ad.

The truth is, they would have got a right bollocking from Sugar for coming up with an ad like that, yet he gave the green light, and paid for that emailer ad.[/quote]

That clip is on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdAXcfV4QwE

It's a genuine mistake on their part, not paying enough attention during filming. I do wonder if someone in the production crew had a word with the actor and suggested hamming it up a bit. Then seeing that the team hadn't yet spotted the joke, called time on the shoot and off to the next section. The production team are very alive to spotting and setting visual jokes. Liked Kate answering the phone, followed by one of the fish with the same profile.

The emailler ad wasn't meant to be main steam, just create a buzz and get people to email it about. Still doesn't mean it has to be cheap, crass and in bad taste though. You won't want to draw attention to it if you didn't have to. Alan Sugar on Twitter (and facebook) is interesting in the same way that a fly on the wall camera team following the Duke of Edinburgh around 24/7 would be. Beginning to see exactly what bits of him he saw in Syed, Sophocles and Philip Taylor

[QUOTE Beginning to see exactly what bits of him he saw in Syed, Sophocles and Philip Taylor [/quote]

Totally agree with you. I really disliked Syed, Sophocles, and Taylor, so would explain why I dislike Sugar now.