Yeah.I don’t think it bodes well for a company, when their commercial infuriates me so much I have to mute the TV when it comes on.Allstate has done a damn fine job of alienating me from their product with their commercials. I don’t know who the ad agency is that Allstate contracted with or who at Allstate approved these commercials, but I want to know what type of market research was done that concluded:The best way to sell insurance to families is to shit all over boyfriends, husbands, and fathers.
This has been something that has puzzled me for quite some time - why would a marketing company devise an ad campaign that had a reasonable chance of turning off 50% of the population? And why would a marketing department pay for it?
I have worked closely with the marketing folks at the companies I've been employed at for years and years. We never in a million years would have done something like that. Now this was in the tech industry, and our job was to make complicated (mostly security) topics understandable and compelling. While we never did anything as boring as feature/benefit in the advertising, we did try to focus like a laser on something that would make someone think Yeah, maybe I need some of that.
Sure, it's hard, but that's why a good ad agency charges so much. And Allstate has a quite good ad agency (well, an expensive one, anyway).
Click over and watch the insurance commercials that Miguel shows, and ask yourself: does it make you say to yourself Yeah, maybe I need some of that? It sure doesn't to me. I think that the answer is that both ad agencies and marketing departments have been to a large degree taken over by women. A woman might in fact watch that and think that as a matter of fact, they do need some of that.
The punchline, of course, if that you never market to yourself - you market to your customers and prospective customers. Turning off a significant number of them only makes sense if Allstate only wants female customers.
But to Miguel's point - we see a lot of this. Something is pretty broken in the advertising business.
8 comments:
I did survive, but the post belongs to my Co-Blooger J.Kb who writes much better than I do.
Let me abuse your comments' section by saying thanks to everybody who wished and prayed for us South Floridians , we appreciate it very much.
It isn't just advertising agencies. It seems that the only group that can be disparaged under the PC rules in place are white, heterosexual, males. Double that if they are Christian or conservative.
Because white privilege or something.
It's not just insurance companies, which is why Allstate ads didn't seem especially grievous. Many ad agencies are now choosing to portray the man as the "special" one who needs explanation and help.
This has been going on for years. And not just ads. Haven't you noticed all the TV shows that portray men as stupid, or unable to do anything right?
You don't see shows like Father Knows Best any more.
It came home to me in the second or third season of Stargate SG-1 when they made Colonel O'Neil stupid and suddenly Major Carter was the smart one coming up with all the right ideas and such.
It makes me irate! And now you have the feminisation of boys and men, literally and figuratively. God did not create man that way. And I mean that to include men and women. That is something else that yanks my chain...
Back to the advertising. That is the in thing now. Women knowing everything and doing everything better than men. UGH!
One of the many reasons I quit watching broadcast TV.
I'm not going to patronize businesses who think I'm an idiot.
. " Turning off a significant number of them only makes sense if Allstate only wants female customers."
In fact that's often the case: Dad might bring in the paycheck, but Mom takes care of sending out the bill payments. So she's the one who keeps an eye on the insurance.
But that All Alone ad is a direct rebuttal of the thesis, not support: because no one is paying attention to him, Dad gets to spend the money he saved on something he wants, and the wife will have no clue he's doing it. She's the dumb one, not him.
I wrote about the "men vs. Women all state bonus check bs" over at my place years ago before my life sort of forced me to abandon blogging. It isn't just the condescention, it's the contribution to our logic-free, "gotcha" soundbite culture.
None of what she says makes any logical sense.
He lays out a premise, which is "men are better drivers than women."
Now, he may be wrong, he may be right. But her response is nonsensical.
"Then how did I get this safe driver bonus check?"
That makes no sense.
He never said "women are bad drivers" or "women are incapable of being a good enough driver to earn a safe driving check."
He also made no claims as to who was "safer" just "better." Which are two different concepts. It is probably far more dangerous to go for a drift ride with Ken Block than it is to drive to the grocery store with me. I assure you mr. Block is a far better driver than I am, regardless of how safe.
Anyway, the entire "boo-yah! Mic drop!" Aspect of it pissed me off, because there was no "win" there, but all state assumes their customers are stupid enough to not notice a gaping logical flaw.
This may be what is termed "convergence" by the SJW's working at the company. This is when important decisions are being made according to Social Justice ideology, instead of sound business reasons. Not a good thing to happen.
Post a Comment