http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7842769.stm
I saw my first one yesterday!
Sounds fair enough.
I thought the ads were pretty funny, but as adverts they're a bit crap. Consumers get told they should do things a thousand times a day: think different, work smarter, use cillit bang or whatever. Those campaigns work because they have a call to action, something the consumer can do to act on the advert. The "atheist" ads lack that, they're vaguely supported by the humanist society I think, but that's it. Bit of a wasted opportunity in my view (but all good fun).
Stop going to church? Now that WOULD get complaints ...
Stop going to church? Now that WOULD get complaints ...
Actually, slagging off your competitors' products is one of the least successful campaign techniques out there. If you're going to splash on a media buy, use your space to say something positive about your product and why people should use it.
The ads are a great opportunity: most of what the public sees of atheism is the Dawkins / Hitchens version of atheism which is relentlessly negative, accusatory, frequently abusive and only promotes division and friction. It's high time atheism came out of the closet and stopped just sniping from the sidelines. If atheism's going to offer a serious alternative to religion, it's time to put across the positive ideas atheists stand for about clear thinking and self-determination as the main message: tell people why they should be atheists, not why they shouldn't be believers.
An alter ego of mine made the observation at a public meeting that "no-one goes to church these days anyway" (the discussion was about 'consulting faith groups'). Entertaining and educational response! Suffice it to say that the faith groups are included in the consultation - result!
And Niggle, if you're going to make observations try to base them (I only say try) on some kind of evidence. Right now it's too late to present all the research demonstrating how negative advertising works so trust an old ad man when he says that this is the case!
The ads are effective because they do contain a call to action - 'get on with you life free from worry'. For some doubters and semi-agnostics that's a cheering message. However, I doubt whether the ad campaign actually had any substantive planning which would mean that the mere fact of it happenning is a success.
"No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority." Robert Heinlein
I'm basing it on fifteen years working in the industry - perhaps you work in marketing and advertising too?And Niggle, if you're going to make observations try to base them (I only say try) on some kind of evidence.
The evidence is not generally available because the research is usually privately funded and not published. This isn't science I'm afraid. But the reason negative advertising doesn't work as well is self-evident: it's not enough to convince consumers not to use your competitor's brand, you have to enforce positive messages about your brand's attributes.
I disagree. That's just a claim - "because there is no God you can stop worrying and get on with your life" - in the same way that "because Cleano contains Ingredient X you can remove limescale instantly" is a claim.they do contain a call to action
The call to action is not a command to do something, it's an invitation to further interaction: "call us NOW!" or "see our web site for more information".
Last edited by niggle; 22nd January 2009 at 08:47 AM.
To step between Niggle and Tim...ouch...:
1. This has been an incredibly successful campaign because it has spread like wildfire around the World, from a relatively minute spend.
2. The spend has been multiplied many times by the Press follow up.
It is very difficult to see how much better they could have done. Posters are notoriously difficult to do well (I did a few years in the industry). Perhaps a latter day Eva Herzigova might have helped? But on second thoughts perhaps not a sensible option.
A specific call to action would have been difficult. Perhaps JOIN THE BHA TODAY, but this was an awareness/branding campaign as opposed to a
direct sell. BHA etc could use it as a precursor to a dm campaign maybe. That's called integrated marketing.
All in all it is a daft argument to dissect this too far. It was a bloody good effort. All one can do is propose better, and I still have not seen anyone do so.
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
It's a common topic for student design competitions (along with condom advertising), some of the ideas are really excellent!All one can do is propose better, and I still have not seen anyone do so.
Psychologically, just putting an idea (right or wrong) into the public arena is enough to get a few people (and sometimes many) thinking.
I see this all the time in paranormal research. For instance it widely believed that 'ghosts emit electromagnetic fields'. This is despite the fact that there is no research to demonstrate it or even research that shows ghosts to be objective external entities capable of producing such fields. Someone, sometime started this meme and it has become incredibly powerful. Just getting ideas 'out there' is a very useful!
Originally Posted by niggle
Have you got any examples?
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
Not on the web, no. They're common exercises because they teach students what the ASA and OPA restrictions are.Have you got any examples?
Sorry, ASA and OPA are the Advertising Standards Authority and the Obscene Publications Act respectively.
Yes, it can. But you have to be careful what it gets people thinking. Negative messages will usually get more people thinking you're a tosser whose product is shite than questioning whether you could be right about your competitors.Psychologically, just putting an idea (right or wrong) into the public arena is enough to get a few people (and sometimes many) thinking.
I've never worked in advertising, although I do support IT for a Marketing department, so although I know a little about campaigns and how they are run, I know very little about the art of advertising.
Anyway the point I wanted to make, and hopefully one of you ad-men can point me in the right direction....is that I remember reading a few months ago about how much of the advertising industry was based upon ideas which were formulated in the 70s, possibly by one person or book, and that recently this has started to call into question much of the thinking of the last 20 or 30 years? This included things like subliminal advertising which is not really effective at all. Just wondering if I remember this right?
From a skeptical point of view, I think advertising is a great issue to discuss. There must be so many myths and mistruths in the industry, and measuring the success or not of advertising must in many cases be a very subjective measure.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
It's odd but there's very little hard evidence that advertising works at all. It's really impossible to separate out all the different factors which influence the choices people make at the point of purchase.measuring the success or not of advertising must in many cases be a very subjective measure.
The reasoning usually employed is that if it didn't work, we wouldn't do it, backwards though that may be!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks