Am I the only Londoner who’s alarmed at the sudden blue river of paint that has been poured over certain roads in our beloved capital of late? One morning we were whizzing along on our bicycles in old running clothes in plain old bus lanes, or if we were lucky, reddish tracks at the side of the road. You could see where these tracks were, but they didn’t jump out at you and knock you off your bike. Then, one morning I turned left at Kennington, and there it was - a big bold river of blue paint blighting the cityscape.
Being of innocent persuasions, I thought some worthy research had shown cyclists stand out better on a blue background. That surely could be the only excuse for painting a portion of London’s roads a ghastly garish blue. Then slowly it dawned on me that the Barclay’s cycling scheme springing up around the city might be somehow connected. Even so, I never for a moment imagined someone had given the nod - official permission - for a corporation (a banking one at that) to paint London’s roads in their corporate colours.
Yet that appears to be the case. A ghastly, corporate blue that is a blight on the landscape that is London. Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-corporation, and as one of London’s billion cyclists, I am grateful to Barclays for sponsoring our shiny new cycling scheme. Anything we do to make the city a more environmentally sound and safer place gets the thumbs up from me. Nor am I naive about branding. It’s what I do for a living. I like a powerful colour palette, a name with instant recognition, bold messages, logos with standout. I inwardly smile when I spot the clever integration of a brand’s values into sponsorship. But there are some things that are communal, beyond branding. Like streets and roads. So I am left puzzling how a bank persuaded the Mayor to paint our streets in their corporate colours, and no-one has turned a hair.

ShareThis

Coca Cola has been the leading brand of soft drink beverages in the world for a long time, edging out its fierce competitor, Pepsi. This has been attributed to, among other things, the fierce advertising and marketing strategies that this company employs. Forget things like permission based email marketing, coca cola have always taken a bit of a different approach to thier business marketing. Let’s have a look at why I like Coca Cola advertisements on TV.

1. Their advertisements have always been aimed at being innovative and simple such that even small kids would understand their promos. It is attributed to the marketing strategy team of Coca Cola who have been working diligently to give interesting and eye catchy advertisements. These advertisements are very colorful and include some good music too.

2. Coca Cola has got some immensely popular stars and celebrities as brand ambassadors for them. From those days of Marilyn Monroe to today’s Aishwarya Rai, they have been able to capture the viewer’s attention and it is very nice to see these glam dolls breezing our television screens, dating back from the 1950’s!

3. There are always some offers being popped up by Coca Cola to lure more patronage. Lucky draws were also arranged where bumper prizes such as cars, motorcycles and cash vouchers are given away. Even recently the advertisement suggesting that you should look under the crown of the bottle to win prizes was widely spoken about by the people; the young generation in particular.

4. A recent advertisement like the one where you see a man going up a hill and setting up a musical instrument and monkeys playing music for getting a sip of Coca Cola was well received by everyone.

5. Another reason for their advertisements gaining huge popularity is that they roll out new promos for every season. Every Christmas they make sure they send out a simple Christmas message to everyone through their trendy advertisements.

ShareThis

It started with Shakira when the groovy dancer occupied center field rather than her customary center stage. The kick off then took place and the world has been hooked since then to this mesmerising event that’s being enacted out there on the African soil.

FIFA for football is but a game and therefore not a product and yet here it is being referred to as a product. What be the reasoning behind such a reasoning?

If one were to go back a while in time and check the process of ad campaigns that preceded the FIFA event, one would surely find a close resemblance with the marketing strategy that manufacturers of products or services follow. The world or word of FIFA with a collage of footballers or flash display of the footballers appears on the screen or print, surrounded or crowded with all the products that sponsor the event.

The central product being FIFA or football as a game, it meshes with the balance products that use this platform for its own promotion. It is also well established a fact that players themselves are heavily paid from the cash boxes of these allied products called sponsors (you don’t really think that a football player would have a Garmin forerunner 305 otherwise do you?!).

Nothing wrong if this is done, for after all it is promoting the game of football we argue? Then it would need to be noted that the products that participate in the game as sponsors and whose ad campaigns make the mark in this sporting event are all products that have no meaningful effect on health.

A sporting event has ads being carried on fast food, televisions, cars and bikes. There is marked absence of anything that leads to good health and spirit. With millions of people glued to this event there is a chance for good messages like need to save nature and all things natural being showcased also.

ShareThis

That the tablet PC has turned into the gadget of the millennium has no place for debate. Every day there is a new one being made and sent into the market that already experiences a glut in this segment. The fanfare and the fanning of the product prowess that the makers place on the internet for viewers to read and get attracted makes one ponder if this gadget can surely do what the fine print claims it can do.

The benchmark for this gadget appears to be Apple, with its iPad being the specific product that every other advertisement campaign seems to be either comparing with or trying to outdo. From watching a movie to reading a book along with communicating with one’s near and dear ones all seems to be packed in one small gadget.

Though this leaves one in awe and reverence for the makers and evolvers of this magical gadget, there is the other flip side to this entire scheme of things. Hooked to this singular gadget, would the user have any time for the fellow beings treading the roads of life alongside? Heads bent, fingers crooked would be the poised pose of humans very soon all thanks to this gadget and the way it is being hyped?

Then there was announcement that giants like Samsung (using some of the great Galaxy S technology) and LG are about to venture into the world of academics with their tablet gadgets. Supposed to lessen the burden of carrying books to school is how the ad campaigns make it out to be. Saving environment by obviating the obliteration of dwindling wood and forest is what the ad’s claim this gadget would return.

Though at first thought that reads quite helpful yet on second thoughts it may appear that the makers are giving us their tablet camouflaged in a sweetened pill to gulp. This device too has its inherent associated nature harming effects. For one it harms the very nature of mankind and with it entering the schools it is trying to harm the kind of man at its very bud.

ShareThis

What is it about Budweiser? The so called “King of Beers”- a title no doubt coined by the advertising industry - is pretty mediocre, as drinks go. That’s merely my opinion, of course, but it’s only rarely that I catch myself drinking it in favour of almost any other beer that’s going.

I feel fairly safe in saying, however, that Budwieser’s advertising is consistently excellent. From a bunch of girls on a club med ski holiday, to comedy frat adverts and meaningful messages during the Super Bowl, have always been top notch. Their latest offering, which serves a dual purpose as a responsible drinking ad, sees us in a club with a guy offering to buy drinks for his friend across the bar, who ends up miming that he is driving so can’t drink. Misunderstanding ensues and the whole club ends up mimicking his mimes, which they mistake for cool new dance moves. Possibly it’s better for you to watch than me to describe. Just youtube it - Budweiser designated driver…

Remember those adverts a few years back that crazed the nation? Whazzup… A single advertising campaign had people form all walks, of all ages, again mimicking the adverts.

And the frogs. Oh the frogs. who would have thought that frogs, and indeed chameleons - we musn’t forget the chameleons - could provide such high quality entertainment, and advertising, when given voices.

I think the real key behind most of Budweiser’s adverts is that they’re entertaining. A lot of their rivals sell their products with sex - fair play, they know their target market - but Bud is consistently cool, original, and entertaining. They think outside the box and craft their adverts in a way that appeal to everyone, not just the men who already drink the stuff. I mean, half the adverts I remember are from a time before I could legally even buy beer, and they stick in my head to this day. It’s just a shame I don’t really like the drink itself!

ShareThis

1. GoCompare-Thanks to their annoying, obnoxious tenor I won’t be giving this company the time of day should I look for car or home insurance, purely due to their constant airing of this tripe. However it looks like many people share the same view, as it was number one as the most infuriating advert ever according to asylum.

2. Oasis and the Cactus Kid. This deserves a mention due to the amount on controversy it generated during its time. The Guardian reported that the girl on the run with the Cactus Kid looked underage despite being a 20 year old (some viewers thought she was at the tender age of 14) implying that advert condoned underage sex and teenage pregnancy. Also the advert seemed to discourage the drinking of water, and as a viewer, how does this advert convince me to crack open a bottle of Oasis? I don’t think it makes any real reference to the drink, just a Cactus guy (can’t be a kid if he makes one with this girl) and a girl on the run, doesn’t say anything explicit about drinking Oasis.

3. Just for Men a touch of grey. When we watch adverts about dying hair, we expect it to be about people trying to rid themselves of grey hair. So why would someone, with jet black hair, decide to dye it grey? Won’t that happen naturally in about a few years time anyway?

4. Glade Touch’n fresh. “I’m going to do a poo at Pauls!”Need I say more? Cringeworthy!

ShareThis

There are some adverts in this world that are good, ones that may actually convince us to buy their products despite cutting into the programmes we love to watch. However there are some adverts that are so annoying, one we cringe at, and change the channel. However there are adverts plastered over billboards outside that we can’t really avoid, however much we hate them.

I remember a few weeks ago, passing a street on the bus when I saw an advert which had the words “Ever thought of Coco Pops after school?”plastered over it with a picture of that monkey in a school uniform under the sentence. I just looked at it and I thought, “What a stupid advert!”Sounds extreme, but from what I’ve seen, Kellogg’s haven’t really innovated to warrant an advert. It sounded like lazy brainstorming with an unimaginative idea to shore their product. I know that The Guardian reported on an article when parents didn’t like the idea that Kellogg’s were trying to make their kids eat a rather sugary snack after school through advertising to them and creating new packaging boxes to target younger individuals, another issue, but seriously, I thought that this ad was just purely idle.

No real new idea at all, and it isn’t the first time too. Kellogg’s done a similar advert about having Coco pops with hot milk, again lazy; I just can’t see the selling point of the advert. If Kellogg’s advertised a free toy with it then sales would probably surge. Kids get fixated on adverts, particularly if treats are involved, but the mind boggles, how does this advert get kids to convince their parents to buy Coco pops? I’ve seen many adverts that similarly, do not introduce any new features with a product, instead bringing new ideas on how to use them in, the most obvious being chocolate crispies made from Kellogg’s Rice Krispies instead of eating it as a cereal, but I just couldn’t help but sense lazy advertising this time around.

Coco Pops have also made a cringeworthy TV advert for this, you can see it here.

ShareThis

Beer ads in general are quite good, but when John Smiths decided to take on Peter Kay they went into overdrive. The diving ad starts off and you have no idea what’s about to happen. The first diver is good, the second diver, the Canadian does a fantastic triple somersault and enters the water perfectly, and then comes John Smith (or Peter Kay to all of us). As he runs to the end of the board you’re thinking- “no he can’t be, surely not”, and then he jumps and you hide your eyes as he bombs into the water. That isn’t enough though, the spray from his bombing soaks the judges who remain po-faced. Icing on the cake is of course the cheeky builders bum as he climbs out of the pool to his perfect 10’s and does a thumbs up to the crowd. Sheer genius. Then came the football keepy uppy, where again you’re on tenterhooks waiting for what ever’s about to happen. Kick ups, round the world, teaching overseas, and catching the ball on the back of the neck from one player to the next to Peter Kay and oomph ball goes over the field into the garden, smashes the glass and a “ave it” accompanies it. The wonderful thing about these ads are their ability to make us laugh at our shortcomings. The beauty of Peter Kay is that he makes it look okay to be bad at things and still be incredibly popular. I have heard they have signed him up for another three ads and I myself can’t wait to see what they have in store. Do they make me want to drink John Smiths beer, well if I wanted to buy a bitter and went into a shop I would certainly remember the name of the brand and would probably plump for that one on the strength of a great campaign. The good thing about these ads is that you never tire of seeing them and don’t switch over channels when they come on- like you do for a lot of ads.

ShareThis

It seems that literally overnight, new companies have sprouted out of nowhere, ready to buy your unwanted gold jewellery for cash. Every time a programme stops for a break, there is at least one advert talking about making money out of your old jewellery. They claim that gold prices are at their all time high, and think that you will benefit if you scrape together your old jewellery and send it to them, for their financial advisors to price and give you money.

When I first saw these companies, I had an inkling that they would give you less money for your gold, but I thought of it as normal, as they need to make some profit, and there would be costs to send and refine it. However their tactics have now been investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, as reported by the Guardian. Which? Sent three pieces of jewellery worth £729 to these companies. When I read the figures they offered, I was shocked. One offered £38.50, one didn’t even pay as they denied it was gold, and the third went and doubled their quote after a rejection from the researcher. I found it to be daylight robbery, I would have expected them to pay £300-£400, not £30 for over £700 of jewellery. They claim that gold prices are at an all time high, so why receive £30 for a £700 necklace. Surely even if gold prices hit rock bottom, you would get more than that. According to the Guardian the independent jewellers paid 25% less than the original value, so it would be better to not bother with such companies and go to the local jeweller to get a great deal.

The gold adverts are not only annoying, but con people out of the true value of their jewellery, the best thing to do would be to ignore these companies and try to change the channel if an advert came up.

ShareThis

If you only have three quid to make an advert with, then why bother trying to conceal the fact? Instead, why not use this cruel truth to your advantage? Rather than shying away from being extremely limited with the quality of your advert, you can embrace it; face it head on and boldly create an advertisement that is irrefutably crap. That is exactly what Safestyle UK have done!

Their commercials are by far the cheapest looking ones on any channel. But Safestyle UK have no shame. They are bold in their advertising and deliver a consistently crap string of adverts featuring two of the world’s most irritating characters.

It is against the law for advertisements to be louder than the programmes they interrupt. ‘But they are always louder!’, I hear you say. No they are not louder, the sound has been intensified. This is just another one of Britain’s wonderful legal loops holes.

Bearing in mind how the volume seems to go up with the advent of adverts, it is really annoying when people shout in them. And Safestyle’s two characters do nothing else. Right from the off they are hollering at the camera. Even when these guys are standing further away they are still right in your face. I honestly don’t know which of them makes me feel the most nauseous; the bald one with the silly bow tie or the long haired git with two-thirds of a mouth for a face.

I wonder why companies actually make rubbish like this. I can’t imagine anyone ringing up Safestyle UK when they want double glazing if they have seen one of these ads; surely this campaign has the opposite effect. Perhaps Safestyle are so overworked that these adverts are an attempt to get rid of some of their customers. If this is the case, then I think they are definitely onto a winner.

Exciting news, I have just gotten paid for the image work that I did on those banner stands the other month. Turns out that Malcolm was right, and the red was much more attractive.

ShareThis