Worst and Most Depressing Superbowl Commercial of 2015
- Thread starter FoRiZon
- 36 comments
- 1,527 views
Downhill Dino
Premium
- 11,753
- Maryland
- DownhillDinosaur
I wouldn't say worst, thought it was very clever on their part. It's also getting a lot of attention so a very successful commercial at that.
- 12,122
- Liverpool
- CARBOYXJR
Worst? You have a pretty poor eye for advertising analysis.
The execution is very PIF-like, not just in the message, but also the structure. I think it's worth noting that the contrasts used throughout are absolutely beautifully implemented, and I don't think I've seen such a fairly simplistic yet effective spot with such a smoothly integrated twist in... a very, very long time. The only thing that kills the twist slightly is the voice-over at the end, but I actually think it's fairly minor.
The whole spot is exquisite. Ogilvy & Mather thought this one through. A lot.
The execution is very PIF-like, not just in the message, but also the structure. I think it's worth noting that the contrasts used throughout are absolutely beautifully implemented, and I don't think I've seen such a fairly simplistic yet effective spot with such a smoothly integrated twist in... a very, very long time. The only thing that kills the twist slightly is the voice-over at the end, but I actually think it's fairly minor.
The whole spot is exquisite. Ogilvy & Mather thought this one through. A lot.
Downhill Dino
Premium
- 11,753
- Maryland
- DownhillDinosaur
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 5,069
- Panama City, FL
I seriously do NOT understand the negative reaction to this commercial!!
It's not what you expect of a Super Bowl commercial, sure. It's not funny, it's not heart-warming, it's not a little lost puppy finding his way home, it's not Michael Jackson selling Pepsi, it's not Mean Joe Green selling Coke.
But all of these people calling it a horrible message, they're never doing business with Nationwide, that Nationwide needs to be shut down, boycotted, whatever. I don't get it...
They're running a program to heighten awareness of preventable accidents. Lock up your household chemicals. Secure that big-screen TV. How is that a Bad Thing??!?!??!?
I'm sorry the ad didn't fill you up with warm fuzzies. I'm sorry if it made you think of something unpleasant. The ad was very well done. If the punch line wasn't what you expected, too bad. The message got through, and if you feel depressed or upset that they put you through a fictitious child's death, why aren't you bitching on the web about your neighbor's kid who drowned in a culvert, or the one who was electrocuted sticking a paper clip in a wall outlet? How about your cousin they found face down in the swimming pool one afternoon? Why not contribute something about how being a little more careful with gates or outlet covers or cabinet latches would have saved those lives?
Calling Nationwide a poor bunch of nasty so-and-sos for putting on that ad is extremely misdirected.
It's not what you expect of a Super Bowl commercial, sure. It's not funny, it's not heart-warming, it's not a little lost puppy finding his way home, it's not Michael Jackson selling Pepsi, it's not Mean Joe Green selling Coke.
But all of these people calling it a horrible message, they're never doing business with Nationwide, that Nationwide needs to be shut down, boycotted, whatever. I don't get it...
They're running a program to heighten awareness of preventable accidents. Lock up your household chemicals. Secure that big-screen TV. How is that a Bad Thing??!?!??!?
I'm sorry the ad didn't fill you up with warm fuzzies. I'm sorry if it made you think of something unpleasant. The ad was very well done. If the punch line wasn't what you expected, too bad. The message got through, and if you feel depressed or upset that they put you through a fictitious child's death, why aren't you bitching on the web about your neighbor's kid who drowned in a culvert, or the one who was electrocuted sticking a paper clip in a wall outlet? How about your cousin they found face down in the swimming pool one afternoon? Why not contribute something about how being a little more careful with gates or outlet covers or cabinet latches would have saved those lives?
Calling Nationwide a poor bunch of nasty so-and-sos for putting on that ad is extremely misdirected.
- 13,865
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It did seem a bit odd. I thought it was going to be some sort of public service announcement as I was watching through it. To have it come up as an insurance company seemed...weird.
"Take out insurance, because your kids might get injured or die," is an odd message.
And the rest of the commercial really doesn't jive with the stated message of "making things safer for kids." At no point did they reference anything about making things safer for kids, just guilt tripping people about a child who died.
Very sad stuff, but we all know that the optimal situation for Nationwide is that everyone takes out insurance AND the injury/death rate drops so that they don't have to pay out. Hence we end up with a confused commercial that is trying to guilt people into protecting their family and promote lowering the accident rate all at the same time.
Brilliant, from the perspective of the insurance company.
Bewildering, from the perspective of the prospective customer.
- 6,259
- Tecumseh, MI
- I_Fail_At_FPS
Nationwide also Sells Life Insurance. But no matter how much they pay out for a claim, they cannot reimburse the family for the emotional loss of a love one. They decided to highlight that to hopefully keep people from having to go through that plight.
IMO, the reason that the commercial caught flak is due to the fact that it isn't a traditional Super Bowl commercial. But on the other hand, is a preventable death really heartwarming or funny? I'd argue that the commercial would get even more flak if done in the traditional Super Bowl format since people would then claim that the commercial makes a mockery of death.
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
I refuse to believe Ogilvy himself would've okay'd such a guilt-trippy, downtrodden ad if he were still alive. The ad doesn't sell the company or product, it simply shocks with a dead kid. Well, shocks isn't really the right word, since you can see the bait-and-switch coming. But either way, "dead kid" is what the average viewer is going to take away from the ad.
It's a weird message to focus on anyway: while preventable accidents leading to child death are uniformly unfortunate, it says something of the times we live in when that is the leading cause of death in that age group. No diseases, no ailments, nothing of the sort. Just accidents. Of which they want you to do your part to reduce them, but not enough that they'll talk about how. And, y'know, you should still take out insurance.
It'll only be measured as a success if they see an improvement in sales. Some clever employee might work in "millions of social media impressions" into a powerpoint presentation for their next meeting with Nationwide, but that wouldn't be taking into account all of the people who've just sworn them off.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
There's nothing particularly wrong with the ad - except that it's manipulative. It's presented in the style of a public awareness campaign, but it's for-profit. It's not about forcing you to confront an unpleasant truth, but rather about taking a deeply personal issue and commercialising it. It's not trying to address an actual issue in any meaningful way, it simply takes the idea of tragedy and uses it to sell a product. The executives at Nationwide won't care if preventable childhood deaths actually goes down so long as they turn a profit.
Audiences don't like being manipulated on that level.
- 40,766
This was my main problem with it. It immediately reminded me of those texting while driving ads, except there didn't seem to be real empathy involved in making it. A company not directly invested in such a way could have pulled it off as a PSA; and even Johnson & Johnson or some other company with a more specific relationship to what happened in the ad could have done it and probably been lauded.
But an insurance company doing it just makes the whole thing seem skeevy and insincere.
- 12,122
- Liverpool
- CARBOYXJR
The "apply PSA structure to any old advert" card has been played before, a lot, and I hate it. But this one doesn't get to me like that, and I can't work out why for my life.
Here's how I stand on it overall:
A PSA/PIF structured subtly and metaphorically, that's a plus. They (when done properly and executed with sense, I'm talking to you, THINK!) are usually the most effective. This makes heavy use of atmospherics and mood changes, yet they are more consciously crafted into it rather than being shoved in your face, which is kind of funny, since in the end, the big taboo of death (and the death of a child at that) actually is.
It would be much worse if they'd pulled a generic shockvertising move, since they're getting to the point where they're either super cheap jump scares, or the agency think they've hired someone called Mr. Toscani, in which case they'll chuck some needless gore at you. I do generally lean towards liking the latter, even more so because they're a dying breed.
Some people would class this as shockvertising. I can see why, but I think this is more complex than that. Most people are getting hung up on the issue of using a taboo subject to shift some insurance deals, and if it was literally just that message on its own, I would feel exactly the same way. But I just can't. I think the execution (if you partially forget the message for a second) is top notch.
It falls into no real category. It's got a mix of everything, which should make it a 60 second car crash, but it's somehow been crafted so finely it's a good 60 seconds of visual material. The dialogue is nailed too.
But look at it this way:
Is it a PSA? No.
Is it liked by all? Far, far from it.
Does it tackle a taboo subject without coming across as overly offensive and a cheap shot at Toscani-ism to give them 15 minutes of fame? Yes.
That last point is pretty hard to do, in any case, and with any message.
Hopefully that made some sense.
Oh, and here is this year's Super Bowl polar opposite spot. It's a PSA with terrible acting and extremely dark humour, but instead of getting a deep point across, the atrocious visuals completely over-do the humour. It's the world's first accidental HEBS-esque spot. A really bad HEBS-esque spot. (The song is cracking though, that's definitely HEBS inspired, and makes you think what could have been if they'd gone for that approach).
- 6,425
- KCCO
Manipulative....Seriously?
What, is this, 1964 atomic bomb scare? No. At what point in the commercial do you find that you need to switch to Nw because of the fact your big screen is sitting there, waiting to kill your kid? For me it doesn't exist at all, but you claim a commercial, in which the point is to sell something, is bad for the reason it was made by a for-profit company? That's ridiculous...
Ohh, wait, I'm getting word that the NFL is endorsing this, meaning a non-profit is sponsoring. Your view now?
- 17,109
- United Kingdom
Seemed fine to me. Even if you're not interested in their insurance it doesn't hurt to remind people of this important subject.
The BMW ad for the i3, now that was terrible.
The BMW ad for the i3, now that was terrible.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
At its heart, all advertising is manipulation.
- 6,131
- London
- SomaEightyFour
- MrVerloc
I don't see how this is any different to those Thai life insurance commercials, which get shared on Facebook hundreds of thousands of times.
Also, maybe Nationwide send a rep over to your house to identify any potential dangers in your household as part of their care package? It is in both parties' interest after all.
Also, maybe Nationwide send a rep over to your house to identify any potential dangers in your household as part of their care package? It is in both parties' interest after all.
- 6,425
- KCCO
It's not manipulation. They are selling their product through means of preventing the accident in which you use their product for after; however, I haven't seen a big deal made for their life insurance unless I recall the Dale Jr. commercial correctly.
If it were worded "only Nationwide can be on your side" than it were to be manipulative, even though we know there are many other insurance agencies out there with the same stuff... but it wasn't
For the most part, which is not the argument here, commercials are manipulative; as such as a car commercial saying "The Ultimate Driving Machine," even though we all know that not all of their cars are the U.D.M....
But that's not the argument, and to end the point, the commercial was not manipulative.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
And you feel qualified to make that pronouncement based on what, exactly?
Before I became a teacher, my background was in marketing, in particular consumer psychology. This advertisement stands out as a prime example of covert manipulation. It is designed to position the audience through appealing to emotion with the intention of leaving them in a vulnerable position before offering a service to counter it. It's actually pretty poorly constructed, given that the audience is aware that it is an ad from the outset, and the voice-over at the end dilutes the emotional impact, but it nevertheless attempts to deceive its audience by seemingly presenting itself as a non-profit campaign when it is in fact a commercial. Don't mistake its ineffectiveness in achieving its objective as sign that it is not manipulative - it is designed to provoke an emotional reaction to the boy's untimely death, then follow through with a counter-offer designed to offer peace of mind to the artificial vulnerability that it just created.
- 12,122
- Liverpool
- CARBOYXJR
It's effective because of the build up and contrast. It's incredibly effective. See THINK! 50th campaign for more of the same, that was almost identical in structure, and the twist was literally the only impactful thing in it.
I could post 100 real PIFs which have laughably poor structure in comparison to this just off the top of my head.
- 6,425
- KCCO
But you are looking at it from the pov that they are the only one out there who "feels" this way and can offer relief with their product, when the normal person knows there are more programs out there.. So there is no rush to head towards their office and add this to the bill...
Does it make me consider what I may need to do to my house? Maybe. Will I do it, no, I don't have the time. Yes there are people who will panic at sight and go out and follow through, but for it to be manipulative it would have to work for everyone.
The right word we are all looking for is effective.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
The individual techniques might work, but on the whole it fails to deliver its message. All audiences see is the disparity between the presentation as a public awareness campaign and commercial advertising, which undermines the effectiveness of the spot. They won't see the intended message, but rather an insurance company trying to take advantage of them by manipulating them.
The word I am looking for is "know-it-all". I have expert knowledge of this subject. I have entire university degrees dedicated to it. You do not. You have an opinion and a keyboard, and the mistaken belief that you can judge the effectiveness of this ad based on a cursory examination of the most superficial element of the ad, and you seem to think that this puts you in a position where you can override someone who has professional training as an advertiser.
It's not a question of whether or not the ad conveys its message, but of how it does that. And in this case, it presents itself as a public awareness campaign; one that makes no secret of how it will end - the language used makes it clear that something will happen to the boy, even if the exact circumstances are unclear until the end - and tries to use that to put its audience in an emotionally vulnerable position which it then tries to exploit for profit. This is functioning on the most basic subconscious level, and most advertisers would think that it's actually a pretty dirty tactic.
But if it really was as effective as you think it is, then we wouldn't have so many people seeing through it.
- 12,122
- Liverpool
- CARBOYXJR
I agree to some degree with that, but as I pointed out before, if your forget the message, it's a beautiful thing visually. That's what draws me to it.
The real heavyweights in advertising are dirty. If we were in a world where every agency had creatives that were tame, we'd have cheap infomercials in every slot.
This was tame compared to their original plans. All I know is they didn't pull a 15 minutes of fame spot for the sake of Toscani-ism, they actually had a decent idea.
On the topic of PIFs/PSAs/shockvertising, do we have a thread for general analysis and drivel about campaigns?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It's not the way I would have shot it. The subject matter demands something much more candid, more personal. I think the cinematic quality is a barrier - it has been made for the Superbowl, so no expense has been spared. But straight away that makes it a commercial rather than the public awareness campaign that it is trying to position itself as. The audience becomes aware of this pretty quickly, which subverts the message.
Similar threads
