Adidas Too Busy Virtue-Signalling About SJW Issues To Notice One Of The Best Ads Ever
01-07-2017, 01:58 PM
I liked that commercial.
Delicious Tacos is the voice of my generation....
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
Oh, for fuck's sake. A shitty ad?! One that makes news around the world, despite not even being used by its corporate recipient?
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
Guys, stop bandying around the term "target market" as if you really know what it means and how it works.
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
Your argument is basically, "The ad has old people and it can't be a good ad because old people rarely buy Adidas." Meanwhile, this guy will get 20 million views of his "bad" ad, that didn't even become an official ad, by the end of 2017.
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
The student filmmaker's own upload has already gotten 5 million views (yes, for a SPEC AD) in basically three or four days. It was posted mid-December but took off after the New Year.
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
The massive publicity this video piece has gotten is entirely demonstrative of why Adidas should have chosen it.
The vast majority of people talking about it are young people, Adidas' meta-market.
Quote: (08-18-2016 12:05 PM)dicknixon72 Wrote:
...and nothing quite surprises me anymore. If I looked out my showroom window and saw a fully-nude woman force-fucking an alligator with a strap-on while snorting xanex on the roof of her rental car with her three children locked inside with the windows rolled up, I wouldn't be entirely amazed.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
Yes that's correct it's a shitty ad. Don't confuse popularity with profitability.
Adidas wants ads that sell. What's the point of people talking about it if the target demo is not going into the store and buying?
Coroporation exist to make money, not start conversations.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
I do know what it means. I've been writing direct response copy since 2013. Beyond Borders has some good info about it in the Lifestyle subforum.
I've heard of armchair pua's but this is the first time I've seen an armchair marketer. Have you ever written a USP in your life?
Not every product is for everybody. If the shoes are for young people, they should've communicated that some way in the video. That's where it fails.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
Yes, that's correct.
How many of those millions of YouTube views translate into pairs of shoes sold?
How do you quantify re-tweets as revenue? That's what Adidas' shareholders care about (the thing that you don't seem understand). The company can't translate this video's viral status into sales and/or tangible proof that it's existence has a positive influence on units sold.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
There's no virtue-signaling, it's all in your head. If Adidas were, they would issued a statement saying they rejected the ad but they didn't: We only know it was rejected because the video uploader said so.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
Yes that's correct it's a shitty ad. Don't confuse popularity with profitability.
Adidas wants ads that sell. What's the point of people talking about it if the target demo is not going into the store and buying?
Coroporation exist to make money, not start conversations.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
5 million? So what? Britney Spears has sold about 100 million albums of cookie-cutter, vacuous pop songs. Does that sheer volume of records sold, that she didn't write, produce or arrange, make her a good musician?
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
Again, popularity doesn't equal profitability. What is the benefit to owning Adidas shoes for a young person based on this video? It was mostly seen by young people. Who said: "It's a good video" and then they watched 2 hours of cat videos without buying anything.
There are none. It's a video about an old man recapturing his glory. Good story, shitty ad with a nebulous target market(young Millennials while it only depicts geezers in a geriatric center?).
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
You're falling for the psychological phenomenon called "social proof" and you don't even realize it. More people voted for The Cunt aka Hillary than Trump. Do they know something we don't? Hell no!
Thousands of millennial were "talking" about Occupy Wallstreet yet they accomplished nothing.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
I don't see the world through this "everyone is either alt-right or SJW" dichotomy as you seem to.
Quote: (01-07-2017 02:01 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
Let's address these points:
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
Oh, for fuck's sake. A shitty ad?! One that makes news around the world, despite not even being used by its corporate recipient?
Yes that's correct it's a shitty ad. Don't confuse popularity with profitability.
Adidas wants ads that sell. What's the point of people talking about it if the target demo is not going into the store and buying?
Coroporation exist to make money, not start conversations.
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
Guys, stop bandying around the term "target market" as if you really know what it means and how it works.
I do know what it means. I've been writing direct response copy since 2013. Beyond Borders has some good info about it in the Lifestyle subforum.
I've heard of armchair pua's but this is the first time I've seen an armchair marketer. Have you ever written a USP in your life?
Not every product is for everybody. If the shoes are for young people, they should've communicated that some way in the video. That's where it fails.
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
Your argument is basically, "The ad has old people and it can't be a good ad because old people rarely buy Adidas." Meanwhile, this guy will get 20 million views of his "bad" ad, that didn't even become an official ad, by the end of 2017.
Yes, that's correct.
How many of those millions of YouTube views translate into pairs of shoes sold?
How do you quantify re-tweets as revenue? That's what Adidas' shareholders care about (the thing that you don't seem understand). The company can't translate this video's viral status into sales and/or tangible proof that it's existence has a positive influence on units sold.
There's no virtue-signaling, it's all in your head. If Adidas were, they would issued a statement saying they rejected the ad but they didn't: We only know it was rejected because the video uploader said so.
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
The student filmmaker's own upload has already gotten 5 million views (yes, for a SPEC AD) in basically three or four days. It was posted mid-December but took off after the New Year.
5 million? So what? Britney Spears has sold about 100 million albums of cookie-cutter, vacuous pop songs. Does that sheer volume of records sold, that she didn't write, produce or arrange, make her a good musician?
Again, popularity doesn't equal profitability. What is the benefit to owning Adidas shoes for a young person based on this video? It was mostly seen by young people. Who said: "It's a good video" and then they watched 2 hours of cat videos without buying anything.
There are none. It's a video about an old man recapturing his glory. Good story, shitty ad with a nebulous target market(young Millennials while it only depicts geezers in a geriatric center?).
Quote: (01-07-2017 01:00 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
The massive publicity this video piece has gotten is entirely demonstrative of why Adidas should have chosen it.
The vast majority of people talking about it are young people, Adidas' meta-market.
You're falling for the psychological phenomenon called "social proof" and you don't even realize it. More people voted for The Cunt aka Hillary than Trump. Do they know something we don't? Hell no!
Thousands of millennial were "talking" about Occupy Wallstreet yet they accomplished nothing.
Re-tweeting, fb liking and commenting are low-commitment activities that don't translate into your going into a store or logging onto the Adidas site and making a purchase. Adidas gets that. You don't.
I don't see the world through this "everyone is either alt-right or SJW" dichotomy as you seem to.
The only color Adidas sees is green. There isn't any agenda/conspiracy behind this rejection. The director has talent but this should've been a short film, not an ad.
Quote: (01-07-2017 08:52 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:
Maybe they didn't think it was that great, I didn't. If he can run why is he locked up in a nursing home?
Quote: (01-07-2017 04:06 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:
Quote: (01-07-2017 08:52 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:
Maybe they didn't think it was that great, I didn't. If he can run why is he locked up in a nursing home?
Well, the less-inspiring reality of the scenario was that the man most likely had Alzheimer's and the nursing staff was trying to keep him from wandering off and getting hurt.
Quote: (01-07-2017 12:41 PM)david.garrett84 Wrote:
Quote: (01-07-2017 12:06 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:
Ivan's got a point. Most advertising is targeted. Usually the person you see depicted in the advert, print or TV commercial, is whom the ad meant to attract and hopefully sell to(ad has Asian guy in it they're trying to sell to Asian Men)
Let's be serious, how many White Male Senior citizens are dying to be marathon runners? Adidas probably realized that while those Seniors may have lots of money, there aren't enough of them to justify the cost large-scale ad campaign.
It was a well-thought out, creative ad(he should make this into a short film). But ads aren't judged on their creativity. They're judged on their ability to sell; ads aren't art. This one's looking for a nearly non-existent target demographic so therefore it's a shitty ad.
That's it.
There's no globalist boogeyman targeting straight White Men stopping them from doing anything, OP. Adidas passed because they wouldn't get much money from it.
Alright, so how many actual Adidas customers were being targeted by the LGBT or anti-Indian mascot payments madness it has engaged in? Because leftist hipsters don't wear their gear. All this virtue-signalling I mentioned appeals to leftist whites, the people least likely to buy Adidas.
There is something woefully wrong when corporate media and advertising teams (particularly the people who head them and gain from new hits, regardless of where they come from), not to mention executives, think the LGBT and Indian mascot shit will sell their product, but ads like this are not even considered.
So, yes, these people live in a bubble and they are peddling politically correct codswallop on a regular basis.
I said the corporations were cucked, not conspiratorial. And they are cucked when it comes to showing ads about certain folks. They're too focused on pandering to the 3-4% of people who are gay/lesbian, the 0.5% who want to "change" their gender or supposedly have, the hipsters, and minorities (which really centers on what the corporations think are "minority issues", thus encompassing only a subsection of minority opinions). Saying this doesn't make me or anyone else criticizing either an ardent white nationalist or a member of the more racially extreme wing of the alt-right.
Ivan, as for your post, you're assuming that the target market matches only the people depicted in the advertisement - old people and middle-aged or nearing middle-aged medical staff. By that logic, any ad featuring a severely handicapped person won't resonate ever with the 98.5% of people who aren't severely handicapped. Half of the time, the kinds of people in the ad do not matter at all - the emotions do.
Whether you love or hate the ad, it's relatively deep. Reducing it to only being able to appeal to old folks in old folks' homes dreaming nostalgically of long-gone youth is rather ridiculous given the waves across many demographics it has made this week.
As for the "doing my job for free thing", that is not how marketing and advertising works for Nike at least. I can't comment on Adidas. The people who scout ideas or are responsible for administering creative teams have every incentive for picking a successful advertising campaign.
Quote: (01-07-2017 04:10 PM)Easy_C Wrote:
Shoes fall into this category. While certain types of shoes will definitely have their own niche, athletic shoes as a category don't need a specific target niche for the same reason that grocery stores don't need to target a specific niche. Everybody with two cents to rub together needs the product.
Quote: (01-07-2017 04:22 PM)Delta Wrote:
Quote: (01-07-2017 04:10 PM)Easy_C Wrote:
Shoes fall into this category. While certain types of shoes will definitely have their own niche, athletic shoes as a category don't need a specific target niche for the same reason that grocery stores don't need to target a specific niche. Everybody with two cents to rub together needs the product.
Are you really contending that elderly people who never partake in athletics need athletic shoes?
Quote: (01-07-2017 05:24 PM)Easy_C Wrote:
Quote: (01-07-2017 04:22 PM)Delta Wrote:
Quote: (01-07-2017 04:10 PM)Easy_C Wrote:
Shoes fall into this category. While certain types of shoes will definitely have their own niche, athletic shoes as a category don't need a specific target niche for the same reason that grocery stores don't need to target a specific niche. Everybody with two cents to rub together needs the product.
Are you really contending that elderly people who never partake in athletics need athletic shoes?
An elderly person starring in the video doesn't make elderly people the target audience.
Quote: (01-07-2017 09:13 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:
The single worst thing about this worthless video is its disgusting and virtually unbearable soundtrack. I don't know who ordained that every video supposed to pack an emotional punch must be accompanied by this exact species of mock-lugubrious canting sound vomit, but I know that it's been the assaulting my ears for a long time now and is almost -- almost -- as bad as the film stock contemporary Hollywood has been using for its "serious", or worse, "gritty"/"dark" films. That garbage is strictly intolerable for even a nanosecond.
Guys will sometimes post obligatory eye bleach after a particularly distasteful image (like a naked and inked Lena Dunham), so here is some astringent, cleansing, and most welcome ear bleach to delete the memory of that video's soundtrack from my brain:
Quote: (01-08-2017 11:41 AM)Teutatis Wrote:
That's ear bleach? It's even worse than the garbage the dude used for his depressing video.
Quote: (01-08-2017 12:03 PM)Teutatis Wrote:
How is posting more garbage making it any better?
Quote: (01-08-2017 11:41 AM)Teutatis Wrote:
Quote: (01-07-2017 09:13 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:
The single worst thing about this worthless video is its disgusting and virtually unbearable soundtrack. I don't know who ordained that every video supposed to pack an emotional punch must be accompanied by this exact species of mock-lugubrious canting sound vomit, but I know that it's been the assaulting my ears for a long time now and is almost -- almost -- as bad as the film stock contemporary Hollywood has been using for its "serious", or worse, "gritty"/"dark" films. That garbage is strictly intolerable for even a nanosecond.
Guys will sometimes post obligatory eye bleach after a particularly distasteful image (like a naked and inked Lena Dunham), so here is some astringent, cleansing, and most welcome ear bleach to delete the memory of that video's soundtrack from my brain:
That's ear bleach? It's even worse than the garbage the dude used for his depressing video.