Ad Thoughts, Part 3

(Yeah, they keep dribbling in.)

I just posted this:

At this point I would rather the average beer or car or cellphone company just give up on buying ads that attempt tell me anything about their products. I'd like to see someone hire Spike Jonze or Knox Harrington* to make a handful of 30 or 60 second video clips and throw a "Brought to you by Verizon" up at the end.

A bit of explanation:

Yes, partially this is just me wanting to see weird stuff. Guilty.

But I think the larger goal of TV advertisers has to be to stop DVR users from fast-forwarding through commercials, or just changing the channel. If that's the goal, and you're a company with good name recognition, then you might be well served by just putting up the most entertaining short video you can think of and flashing your logo at the end. People won't learn much about your products, but at least they'll sit through the ad.

(Side note: would TV stations charge less for an ad that is more likely to keep viewers from changing the channel during a break? You might need to line-up and entire breaks worth of these to make it work, but it might be worth studying for someone.)

Maybe this is why, unlike everyone I've talked to, I actually like Levi's Pioneers! O Pioneers! ad. (Also, I happen to like Whitman and that poem. It reminds me of some of the better Psalms.)



And by the way, yes, I do understand that the use of O Pioneers! and the imagery of the ad are not random choices on Levi's part. Taking the oldness of Levi's and trying to link it to adventure and progress and "sinewy youth," but doing it in a way that doesn't turn it's back on their history by trying to directly compete with the new, high-style jeans companies. I think it's actually kind of clever. But my point stands. They're essentially using a non-narrative, minute-long experimental film as a TV spot, and I want more of that.