I recently reinvigorated my "Random Person Might Be Wrong" blog posts with a rebuttal to Brian Steinberg's "Apple's Rare Ad Misstep: Celebrity Siri Ads That Slice the Wrong Way" post written for Ad Age. Steinberg posited the idea that using celebrities–Samuel L. Jackson and Zooey Deschanel–in television commercials, in which they sport fancy new iPhones equipped with Siri, is a tad elitist. (You can read my quote-for-quote rebuttal: "Brian Steinberg Might be Wrong: How Apple's Recent Siri Ads are Fine.")
Steinberg and I briefly continued the "discussion" on Twitter for the past few days. A few new points came into the light:
Mr. Steinberg's 140-character responses spurred an epiphany. (Hear me out.) Let's assume that there isn't an effective advertisement (or advertising campaign) that will not offend someone somewhere.
It's too good to be true; therefore, it would do us some good to figure out where the lines are, so as not to cross them.
Take the Dr. Pepper 10 "It's Not For Women" campaign.
Obviously, this campaign pushed some people the wrong way. One of my professor vowed to never drink Dr. Pepper again (given this vow didn't include diet Dr. Pepper). However, this advertisement was memorable and worked well for the target audience–men.
Did the Dr. Pepper brand sustain the good perceptions of those offended by the ad? Did the benefits of effectively marketing to the target audience outweigh the offense certain people took from the commercial? Did Dr. Pepper plan for it?
Related posts:
- Brian Steinberg Might Be Wrong: How Apple's Recent Siri Ads are Fine
- Jonathan Baskin Responds: Why Old Spice Commercials are Effective – PART 2
