Instead of the usual ad review, I thought I’d say a few words about ad criticism and what I’m trying to do in this blog.
I have three reasons for writing this blog:
- Educate: I’m want to share the information in my ad reviews to offer an opinion on what might make an ad effective or ineffective. I think that one of the biggest problems plaguing ad agencies today is their willingness to be clever at the expense of clarity. They frequently lack the ability to see their work the way that consumers see it because they are too involved with the subject matter. Any attempt to market a product automatically puts the marketer on the wrong side of the fence. You don’t build a better mousetrap by thinking like a corporation that builds mousetraps—you build a better mousetrap by thinking like a mouse.
- Entertain: I try to present the information in an entertaining and sometimes humorous manner. Reading this blog should be fun.
- Marketing: I’d be less than honest if I didn’t admit that one of the reasons for this blog’s existence is to drive traffic to my website to get clients for my copywriting and SEO service.
I said this before, but it bears repeating. My comments on this blog regarding the effectiveness of a particular ad are only my opinions. I happen to think they’re good opinions but I’m biased. Since I’m not privy to the sales figures of a company whose ad I may be writing about, I may wind up trashing an ad that turns out to be the most effective ad in the history of advertising.
Here’s a litte video that illustrates this point. I saw this on Seth Godin’s The Dip blog in a post from 1997. He used it to make a similar point.
The point here is that it’s easy to prejudge something because it doesn’t look pretty. The real test is: how does it perform? Sometimes, we’re all surprised.