fluffy clouds

This from Peter S Clarke’s blog…

So, I thought it’d be interesting to see if I was capable of watching an advert break without getting irritated with every single one. Turns out… almost. Here’s the list, taken from the final break in a the final episode of this season’s Dollhouse (which was worth sticking with after all):

Admiral Insurance – not a good start.

Why are there so many adverts on TV for a product that most people buy only once a year? It’s pretty much guaranteed that 51 weeks out of the year, I won’t give a crap about the insurance on my car. As this was one of those weeks, this was yet another 25 seconds of my life wasted. Better yet, it was for Admiral Multicar, which, seeing as how I have only one, is worthless to me.

John Frieda hair fluffing stuff

- I lost interest after he made it sound like the world may come to end if the model’s hair were to become flat. Oh wait, it was Tresemme, not John Frieda. I quite liked the old adverts with that reality show man/woman, but this one was just dull.

Olay – Fiona Philips (TV Presenter):

“these days I’m often asked if cheaper anti-aging products are a smart way to save money’. In what world is this a commonly asked question? I did like the subtle reference to the need to save money in the current economic climate. The message of the advert – why save money when there are penta-peptides to be had?

Flash – actually quite enjoyed this.

On the right side of cheesy, suggesting that you’ll need sunglasses indoors because your house will sparkle so much after you’ve used Flash multi-surface cleanser. It even has a nosy neighbour who is quite literally bowled over by the shine. Quality.

Back to school at Tesco -

the usual cheap and smug advert from Tesco. Instantly forgettable, which is a good thing.

Wilkinson Sword women’s razor

- men’s razors get more blades, women’s get cool gadgets. Well, as long as you want to trim your bikini line. Reasonably clever advert that demonstrated the fancy designs the product can create through the metaphor of topiary magically reshaping itself as some very, very skinny ladies walked by.

So some good news, some bad. The good news – I’m capable of lasting an entire advert break without jumping to my feet and shouting at the TV. The bad news – it’s only a matter of time before I’m overcome by the impulse.

from…
http://www.psclarke.co.uk/blog/

When I saw the tweets which pointed to the online Telegraph piece, my first reaction was, “Great – we can use this!”

You’ve probably seen the article at Telegraph.co.uk http://bit.ly/42BTmh but is this useful information for online advertisers or those considering adding online ads to their sites?

Acording to the study, ‘Internet’ advertising share is 23.5% while ‘Television’ received 21.9% of revenue. At the same time, overall advertising spend reduced by 16%.

Of course, this is spend, and says nothing about what actually works in advertising. If advertisers are abandoning TV are they actually getting value-for-money out of online advertising instead?

Reading further, display ads are said to be performing well against more traditional forms of advertising but we need to see the evidence of this in hard data.

I suppose this is what I am saying -

there is a danger in using articles such as this one to justify online advertising.

Is this headline is a rallying cry for everyone to shift to online advertising? This article is not, in itself, an academic study of the effectiveness of different forms of advertising. If we want to influence advertisers, we need to be basing our assertions on cold, hard evidence.

So what do you think?