I am fully aware of the ad's point. I am fully aware that people who use Adobe watch the Super Bowl, too.
I am fully aware that the more people who see your ad, the greater chances of your ad being remembered. In other words, I am fully aware of math. Specifically probability and logic.
If, say, 111.3 million viewers saw that ad on the super bowl, and 2% of them were adobe users, that number would be 2,226,000.
Whereas today, February 17th, a full 18 days after it was posted on Adobe's official youtube channels, the Animal spot has 159,560 hits.
2% of 159,560 is roughly 3,192. Even if every last person in that 2% bought an adobe product, it still does not come near the probability (measured or otherwise) that more people would have bought Adobe if more people would have seen it.
Here's another way of thinking about it. if you trust the measurements so much, and if you trust the targeted advertising so much, why did we have to receive an article telling us about it? Why was there so much PR around it? Why did you have to do double the work? First to inform me the spot is out there, and then to make me watch it? Especially when it's on Youtube, essentially the dumping ground for all spots, now?
Oh and here's something else I'm fully aware of: We watched the spot because we write for this ad site and work in advertising for a living. The majority of people-- targeted or not--d o not like ads. So much so that other people are developing apps and devices that will one day soon block all your online ads.
How will you measure it then?
I get that Beck's label is red, but then if that's the case why call it sapphire if sapphires aren't red. Especially when there are rubies?
I guess the reason it stands out even though they are so similar is because unlike Bud, it used a fish and a hipster song?
I know! I know! I'm over thinking! My mates tell me that all the time. I guess I'm just locked in my traditional ways of starting with a relevant idea before you blow a lot of money to make something that at the end of the day is nothing more than style over substance.
I'll still go with that, although Dabitch said it best: It's a CGI Fighting Fish and it makes no sense.
That's what this place is for. To share opinion.
I am of the opinion that ads should make sense without having to have a one page primer to go with it. Great ads have a simple, clear idea. This is no different from super bowl ads. If an ad has no idea, it's not a good ad.
Your opinion says it doesn't matter if they make sense as long as they entertain. And that the fish will remind people of Nemo. What Nemo has to do with Beer is beyond me. What a singing fish has to do with anything is beyond me. But I don't just write about ads. I make them for a living. And every last ad I've worked on, no matter how wonkdadoodle they were, started with an idea. If I can't see an idea, then it isn't a good ad. Superbowl or not.
I wonder if the client who worked with an account planner to come up with a brief to actually sell something would agree with your sentiment. I wonder too, if your opinion that advertising doesn't make to make sense would placate a client who just spent four million dollars for 30 seconds of air time.
I suppose it depends on the client. Me? I'm unconvinced.
There are currently 2 users online.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
