The Quisenblog

If you heard that a TV spot for a fashion discounter was banned by some stations, you’d be excused for thinking it was because it was deemed a bit too sexually suggestive.

However, stations in Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Baton Rouge, Birmingham and Seattle (Seattle?) rejected this spot from K&G Fashion Superstore for being a parody of a 911 call:

My question is, how can you not tell it’s a put-on? The transcript running over the call and the over-the-top pitch of the caller’s voice are dead giveaways. And when she pleads “He took my money and all I got was this dress,” I mean, come on.

The fact that these TV stations took it upon themselves to censor this ad because of their fear that “some folks out there won’t get it or might be offended” is a classic example of the “30% Rule” I blogged about a few months back (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102586). In their attempts to protect “some of us,” the stations made a decision for all of us to “opt out” of this communication.

Sure, some folks might not get it or think it’s in bad taste. (If that’s the only criteria stations used, they could justifiable ban every beer, pharmaceutical and weight loss spot out there, not to mention some of what shows up on the evening news).

I’m not defending the spot on the age-old “slippery slope” grounds, or even because I think it’s a worthwhile concept. Rather, I’m bringing it up because actions like this run totally contrary to the transparency demanded by today’s media consumer.

The Internet has retrained all of us to understand that the consumer is in control. And any attempt at controlling the communication (and censorship is the ultimate means of trying to control the communication) isn’t kosher in this day and age.

Like it or not, the viewer is in control. Let her decide what’s appropriate. If she doesn’t get it or is upset by it (and some will be), let her take whatever action is deemed appropriate. But minus some sort of tangible violation of decency standards, don’t make the decision for her.

Or she might just ban you.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mickey Uncategorized 911, advertising, censorship, consumer control, K&G, marketing, Media, parody, TV

The biggest upset at the Super Bowl? No, it wasn’t the Arizona Cardinals beating the spread. To me, it was that the top-rated commercial during the broadcast was created not by some hotshot creative team at some gargantuan Omnicom agency. But rather by a couple of brothers from Batesville, Indiana.

Joe Herbert and his brother Dave are living the ultimate ad guy dream. The spot they submitted to Doritos for their “Crash the Super Bowl” contest not only won $25,000 for being one of five finalists picked by Doritos to air during the Super Bowl. It also scored the brothers Herbert a cool million dollars for coming out on top in USA Today’s annual Super Bowl “Ad Meter.” (USA Today’s 2009 Ad Meter: Best Super Bowl Commercials) The self-produced spot beat out 10-year incumbent Budweiser for top honors.

The spot purportedly was produced for less than $2,000 and was shot at a local YMCA.

How refreshing! It renews my faith in this business when two guys with a simple, well-produced idea can whup star creative teams from global agencies with all their focus groups, big name Hollywood directors, mega-million dollar effects budgets and PR hype machines.

Of course, Doritos scored big, too. The attention the client garnered by sponsoring the contest along with the post Super Bowl ad reviews gave the client a great return on its investment.

Thank you, Joe and Dave, for reminding us that in marketing, great ideas rule. And such things as big names, big budgets and big egos really mean very little.

Just don’t come to our office expecting free Doritos.

Posted by Mickey

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

admin Media Ad Meter, advertising, Doritos, marketing, Spokane, Super Bowl, TV