Worst and Most Depressing Superbowl Commercial of 2015

[Tornado]

but for it to be manipulative it would have to work for everyone.

That's a pretty ridiculous attempt to redefine what that word means, because it absolutely does not. The word couldn't be used to describe anything in that case. No form of advertising, no matter how good, sways everyone who views it. It doesn't even have to work on anyone to be manipulative, since the means used is the important part of intent rather than the success rate. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted on advertising campaigns that completely blew up in the company's faces because no one bought into them, but the base intent was still to try to get people to buy into the premise that they were trying to sell.



The perceived intent of this commercial, and why people have reacted so negatively to it, was to sell insurance (or even more cynically, to lower the costs an insurance company has to deal with). Nationwide may very well in good faith simply did want to warn people about dangers in the home, but that's not what people believe because of the way the message was delivered and because they were the ones to deliver it. And, most importantly, in advertising, popular perception and response is reality. If you see through what you think is manipulation, it doesn't cease to be manipulative. It just means you saw through it.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

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.

Forgetting the entire point of the ad's existence is a pretty big aspect to look past.

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.

Dirty =/= clever. I'm not expecting the most nuanced of views on advertising from any high school, but maybe aim for some slightly higher hanging fruit.

 

[Swagger897]

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.

Woopty frickin doo mr know-it-all, I don't give two cents about what you went through so that you could form an opinion, because at the end of the day, you are still just a picture of a frightened Alonso with a keyboard too...
Yes, here-ye, here-ye, I too shall flaunt my superior knowledge, in which thyself hast passed collegiate level curriculum, and learnst what those of the noble have too.


Too bad you got a degree for a worthless occupation, listening to the painful troubles of others.... Don't take it out on me dude, go find a squeeze ball and lay down in your chair. And if I want to ring up a psychologist, I'll rely on an older friend who taught the course of the Eberly college of A&S at WVU...

And, most importantly, in advertising, popular perception and response is reality.

Whoa, hold on there... as that completely disses your entire statement, half of which I agreed to until this. You're saying that one person can claim something in which it spreads like wild-fire through the media and then to homes of many, enough to tip the table, and therefore it is truth? No, and it wouldn't matter what way you phrase that, it's still false. Just as much as how you said:

but that's not what people believe because of the way the message was delivered and because they were the ones to deliver it.

I found nothing wrong with their ad first off. You can claim they did it for protection of others or they did it to lower their expenses. Whatever the reason is, they know it,and everyone else who form two opinions of what it truly means don't.
And as far as "they were the ones to deliver it," please explain in detail as to what this means. I'm not sure if I'm seeing how it would be any different if any other corporation did it, rather than the government, which would be a PSA... If anything they were selling an app. One of which many of you may not have downloaded. From a quick review, you're asked to agree to their terms and privacy policy, something I do regularly when purchasing a product, free or not.
If you disagree with that, then maybe you need to talk to know-it-all and you can have a sit-down session to talk it out...

 

[Tornado]

Woopty frickin doo mr know-it-all, I don't give two cents about what you went through so that you could form an opinion, because at the end of the day, you are still just a picture of a frightened Alonso with a keyboard too...
Yes, here-ye, here-ye, I too shall flaunt my superior knowledge, in which thyself hast passed collegiate level curriculum, and learnst what those of the noble have too.


Too bad you got a degree for a worthless occupation, listening to the painful troubles of others.... Don't take it out on me dude, go find a squeeze ball and lay down in your chair. And if I want to ring up a psychologist, I'll rely on an older friend who taught the course of the Eberly college of A&S at WVU...

Except everything he has said to this point has looked pretty accurate to me ("me" being someone who also has a degree in marketing), and since you've yet to actually base your arguments to the contrary on anything tangible I'd say his experience outweighing yours is pretty relevant. Especially since your response was to focus on where he explained his background on the subject and ignore the part where he debated what you actually said; just like your previous responses to what he's been saying was to act incredulous and bring up irrelevant comparisons.

Whoa, hold on there... as that completely disses your entire statement, half of which I agreed to until this. You're saying that one person can claim something in which it spreads like wild-fire through the media and then to homes of many, enough to tip the table, and therefore it is truth?

For marketing campaigns, absolutely. Pretty foolish to claim otherwise considering how often ads are pulled from rotation for "offending" vocal minority groups.

No, and it wouldn't matter what way you phrase that, it's still false.

Wow. I dunno about anyone else, but I'm convinced.

And as far as "they were the ones to deliver it," please explain in detail as to what this means.

It means Nationwide is an insurance company. This was already talked about on the last page. Anything else?

If you disagree with that, then maybe you need to talk to know-it-all and you can have a sit-down session to talk it out...

I guess not. Throw your toys around in another thread.

 

[Swagger897]

Except everything he has said to this point has looked pretty accurate to me ("me" being someone who also has a degree in marketing), and since you've yet to actually base your arguments to the contrary on anything tangible I'd say his experience outweighing yours is pretty relevant. Especially since your response was to focus on where he explained his background on the subject and ignore the part where he debated what you actually said; just like your previous responses to what he's been saying was to act incredulous and bring up irrelevant comparisons.

I choose not to flaunt my education and skills everywhere. Read the high school and uni threads and you can find me there.

For marketing campaigns, absolutely. Pretty foolish to claim otherwise considering how often ads are pulled from rotation for "offending" vocal minority groups.

So a myth (which at some point in time before being brought up is already accepted by everyone as false) that is brought to light to many and accepted truth is then defined true due to the perception of the public.... Wow, pretty low self esteem in those parts. No different than saying the White House is the most secure place on Earth. At the end of the day, it's a piece of dirt with a big marble block and a six foot gate (or whatever the height is) wrapped around it. Now you have people question those tasked to protect it and its occupants as un-safe. At the end of the day, it's still dirt...

Wow. I dunno about anyone else, but I'm convinced.

I'm not going to argue what you think. I think it's slanderous to believe that but whatever.

It means Nationwide is an insurance company. This was already talked about on the last page. Anything else?

No no no.... why emphasis on the word they? What I'm trying to get at is would it matter for any other insurance agency or organization to say and promote such a campaign? I was wondering what the reasoning was for they... If it's that simple then sorry, misread an ill-alluding clue.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yes, here-ye, here-ye, I too shall flaunt my superior knowledge, in which thyself hast passed collegiate level curriculum, and learnst what those of the noble have too.

If you're going to insult me, be aware that the AUP expressly forbids this. Although I'd say you'll get away with it, since you've clearly tried to do it in iambic pentameter, but have failed and I am not insulted.

Furthermore, my other area of expertise is the study of English, so that was a good way to kill two stones with one bird.

 

[Bo]

Forgetting the entire point of the ad's existence is a pretty big aspect to look past.

Point taken, but you can still appreciate the cinematography.

I'm not expecting the most nuanced of views on advertising from any high school, but maybe aim for some slightly higher hanging fruit.

Meh, I've never been taught a single thing on advertising from school. I'm self taught. I won't be perfect, I'm 15, but as it's my passion I only want to get better at it.

Also, whilst I keep up to date with advertising in general, PIFs and shockvertising are my strong points, so some of my ideas may be a bit messy.