Advertising's 15 Basic Appeals

Also: I am a sucker for clearly outrageous claims on cosmetics ads, like
- that DOES NOT COME OFF for 14 hours
-mascara that makes your lashes 900% BIGGER (any time they throw an impossible percent in there I basically buy the shit the next day)
-makes complete strangers want to FUCK AND RESPECT you at the same time

xxxpost Well, sure, but the adverts are also in competition with each other, and they all work on these hooks to some extent. We're not all free-minded skeptics, y'know.

Abbott I would like to see you sell me something! You could probably sell me a really sweet cricket bat, maybe, but not much else. Oh ok, if you were selling me a totally amazing pizza place in my part of London, that too might work. Might.

Oooooh wait yeah I have bought an album sight unseen because of the descriptive blurb - fortunately it turned out to be brilliant and I have since given up buying music in 99.9% of cases

-makes complete strangers want to FUCK AND RESPECT you at the same time

also loooooool @ this, wish it wasn't too long to be a DN

I remember the first time my husband saw an ad for the Baconator. He grabbed me by the shoulder and said, "I want one!"

hahaha ok I have SAID that about certain slicing devices but I have not yet bought one

where is that slicing device

It made you want something that you would not have wanted if you didn't see the ad. It did its job!

It was linked on ILX iirc and was very neat indeed - still though I would rather wet my eyes with onions than purchase a twistychop

I have bought albums because of stickers put on by record shop employees, but not because of record company advertising.

Also, Abbott, have you seen the advert that promises to MILLIONISE your lashes? That makes me so angry. It doesn't even claim to make them one million % better, just to MILLIONISE them. Whatever the fuck that is.

Also, novelty products are a different ball game, and yeah, I am susceptible to them in that I think they're awesome for all of five minutes, and then I forget that they exist.

ah yeah here we are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkAZo8Z4gWE

Except for THE GARDEN CLAW. Especially GARDEN CLAW GOLD, perfect for the taller or shorter gardener.

I still didn't buy one, though.

(xpost)

#1 = Identity.
#2 = Vanity.

Wait, LJ, are you talking about a slapchop?

I haven't seen that ad...I think it would make me mad because MILLIONISE isn't really a verb. But I would buy some drag queen shit that promised one million percent bigger (well let's say if it was $9 or less, I am not going to pay $30 to look like Tina Root).

haha xps

What products are even marketed as "need to aggress" revenge fantasy shit?

xxxpost Well, sure, but the adverts are also in competition with each other, and they all work on these hooks to some extent.

See, culture mavens and to some degree ad creatives would like to believe this, but basically advertising "works" because it's there. Stay in the marketplace with a consistent message at sufficient weight and sales will improve. The content of the message is really secondary to the media weight, so long as it remains consistent.

emil.y remains OTM

all this talk of MILLIONISING lashes has me thinking of our dear comrade Sarah Haskins and precisely how she'd play that one :D

I guess airtime is the main thing, RM...although borderline people are still swayable by the content of an advert, surely?

Y'all are watching the wrong version of the slap chop ad IMO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWRyj5cHIQA

I'm fighting a losing battle here. There's even an argument that a cool or classy advert doesn't sell the product so much as itself, and that the best way to get the product sold is to crassly logjam it into someone's head with repetition. Although conversely, at this point one does need a memorable hook.

Ooh nice Phil, will be on that...

Why do I feel like the people who brag about being immune to advertising are probably its worst victims?

I'm not sure that content really counts for anything aside from the most luxury of items. I can see someone being swayed by a campaign for differing consoles, but not for differing toilet rolls - they buy Andrex because they know its name, not because they think it appeals to their lifestyle choice.

xxxpost

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha xp

I think my mum buys Charmin toilet paper - now they also had quite an extensive ad campaign, so it clearly works. I'd buy the cheapest own-brand stuff :D

Toilet paper ads are all about the aesthetic sensation of softness.

And even consoles are pretty much built to an audience they've already assessed through market research, so the advertising is not 'hey, we're better' but 'hey, you are already the people who will buy this, remember who we are'.

xpost to myself again.

The adverts on the Tube for all those crime novels are hilariously similar to each other to the extent where you know they're all in league, even sometimes saying 'Liked Jack Reacher? You will also like..' and generally looking to present nothing more than a one-word hook, usually the author's surname.

"sway" is the wrong word. if your messaging is consistent then yes, consumers will begin to associate the foregrounded qualities with your product or service. but that's about POSITIONING, not ADVERTISING. e.g. the two leading brands of detergent will want to carve out slightly different personalities.

and yes, you can potentially squeeze more value out of your media buy with creative that's particularly memorable, but maintaining a "memorable" campaign over the long haul is very difficult. the more memorable your creative, the faster it gets stale.

really the only sort of advertising that can "sway" a consumer is retail-oriented stuff: "big sale right now!" and the extent of that "persuasion" will be to e.g. have someone who's already in the market for your product or service consider purchasing now rather than later.

ultimately, advertising is a vehicle for AWARENESS. for commodity goods in mature markets, it's about awareness of positioning ("this is what i'm about!"). for differentiated goods in growing markets there will be a greater focus on a) "i exist!" and b) "these are my features/benefits"

Aha, so the 'appeals' are just the existing sine qua nons of the product sought, and adverts may as well take them for granted...

This is all fabulously depressing...like, even more depressing than I had thought. You're a wise fella - have you ever studied this stuff properly?

I mean, people (including me) talk about how spot on some of the Marmite campaigns have been, but the fact is they don't have any competition. They could just have a black screen with the word 'Marmite' flashing up on it and it would work as well. Often the artistry of advertising is a luxury that simply keeps purportedly creative types in jobs and nothing more.

(I have to admit, for an out and out socialist/communist, I do love a lot of adverts. But aside from the ones that are made by over enthusiastic people who get it horrendously and offensively wrong, they really don't matter at all.)

Yeah, they don't, really, but I still find the urge to havoc rising when I hear militaristic, objectifying shit like the latest Lynx campaign (well, any Lynx campaign) - it may not make any difference to how the product is sold but it promotes neolithic attitudes

You really think that advertising doesn't work? All of the evidence of its effectiveness is b.s.?

No, I know it works.

What about our goddamn need for sleep? Why the hell isn't that in the list?

who said it doesn't work? it absolutely works. just not like that. advertisers would kill to be anywhere near as insidiously effective as folks seem to think they are.

lj - let's just say i'm not thinking about this stuff from an armchair.

I was referring to emily's "they really don't matter at all". I thought she was saying that ads were ineffective and therefore irrelevant beyond any aesthetic interest they may have.

ah. i do agree with emil.y that the content is secondary to their mere presence. obv. you can get the creative spectacularly wrong or stunningly right but basically just being there is the important thing.

So Fowles considers Sex a "biological need," but Sleep a "psychological need"? WTF I'm not voting!

I can't agree with that at all. Maybe it's true for a commodity, but not for most products.
xpost

okay

16. Need to change channels to a station that's not currently showing commercials.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

By the way, I thought about this after posting (above) and decided that it might make sense to consider sex = biological and sleep = psychological because maybe an ad can arouse us sexually but cannot cause us to go through the biological process of sleeping. Not like I'm going to read Fowles to see if this is the intended distinction.

I was referring to emily's "they really don't matter at all". I thought she was saying that ads were ineffective and therefore irrelevant beyond any aesthetic interest they may have.

― wk, Friday, 8 October 2010 08:30 (5 days ago)

Only just saw this - that's pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. I'm agreeing with rogermexico here.

i mean i dunno it's one rung down the moral ladder from conning old people out of their life savings imo