The funny twist put on the idea of a swear jar in the office is that it has the complete opposite effect. Everybody starts swearing including the boss because they all know that when the jar is full they will be rewarded for their foul mouths.

Another aspect that makes this commercial so funny is the situations in which foul language is being used. The characters are using swear words every chance they get adding to the humor.

The last point I want to make about the ad’s humor is that the “bleeps” themselves are funny. The usage of profanity on TV is still considered to be taboo, yet Budweiser is obviously well aware of the implications, which comes off as poking fun at the institution of censorship.

One thing that I want to discuss is why the ad does not air on TV. One reason would be that the “bleeps” are hardly censoring the word and the whole premise of the ad is based on swearing.

I think that if Budweiser had made an uncensored version it would not have been so successful because the ad plays off the idea that profanity is so prohibited on TV. Also it’s probably because it would be just flat out distasteful for a respectable company to be using profanity just for the HELL of it.

For this weeks ad journal I want to focus on the readings about echoic memory and the Broca’s area of the brain. When I read the article about echoic memory and the use of song, timing, rhythm, and the human voice, I thought about General Electric’s commercial concerning wind power featuring “Try and Catch the Wind,” by Donovan.

The music is what makes this ad so successful because of rhythm, timing, the words and most importantly Donovan’s historical context and voice. I first want to use a quote from the chapter “Secrets” because I feel that it ties in nicely with my analysis.

“Just as it takes an unusual combination of words to engage the listener’s imagination, it requires an unusual combination of notes and rhythm to surprise and enchant the mind. A powerful tool, Music is the language of the soul in the hands of a master, but counterproductive in the hands of anyone else.”

I disagree that it takes an unusual combination of words, rhythm, notes, and imagination to surprise and enchant the mind. I disagree because musicians like Donovan and his American counterpart, Bob Dylan have written incredibly simple lyrics and “usual” melodies to “enchant” the mind. I do however agree that Dylan and Donovan have mastered music, the language of the soul because they have stood the test of time, unlike Brittany spears for example, who’s career has died along time ago.

When I first saw and listened to the commercial I immediately thought about the historical context of Donovan’s time. Donovan and Dylan came onto the music scene right around the same time and created a lot of music that was in lot of ways the soundtrack of the “hippie” movement. To put it simple terms, the hippie movement was a failed attempt to change the world in terms of the environment and peace. The commercial uses one of these old songs that carry that same sort of hippie mentality, except that this time in 2007 we’re pretty serious about making alternative energy I viable institution. The commercial shows that we are actually doing something about the environment rather than just sitting on our butts singing songs and doing drugs. The commercial is linking an old movement with new hard science to create a feeling that finally we are doing something.

Another point I would like to make is that Donovan and Dylan’s voices almost sound the same. And bringing up from the reading about sound recognition makes me think that it doesn’t matter if Dylan sang the song or if Donovan did, the link and the message are the same.

The last point is how the lyrics of the song have nothing to do with the environment, in fact it’s a love song, but the simple phrase “try to catch the wind” works beautifully with the imagery and the plot of the commercial. It’s strange how the commercial is able to make us focus on one specific verse of the song when clearly if you listen to it has nothing to do with wind power.

For this weeks ad journal I decided I wanted to discuss Camel Cigarettes print advertising. Camel, like all cigarette ads are obviously banned from TV so they mostly must rely on print advertising in magazines.

            Ogilvy is very confident and clear about how long copy sells more than short copy, based solely on his own observations without research. He contradicts himself when he makes this statement because research was one of his ways to produce advertising that sells.

            All of Camel’s print ads go against Ogilvy’s point about how long copy sells more than short copy. I believe the reason why Camel does not come out with a 2,500 word ad, is because they don’t have anything good say about their product. Ogilvy mentions not write essay, but just tell the audience what the product has to offer with the specifics, in this case its cancer, which explains why Camel might want to stay away from long copy.

            Ogilvy does bring up some good points about how short headlines are the most effective in terms of readership. Camel’s headline is “Pleasure to Burn,” short, memorable, and avoids words like “amazing, introducing, now, suddenly.”

            Ogilvy talks about how photographs are more successful than drawings and graphics because they were more believable. In Camel’s case its not the same, they use drawings with vibrant colors playing off of the aesthetics of smoking in 40’s and 50’s when it was more socially acceptable rather than the realness of a photograph.

As I was reading What Little I Know about Marketing, I came across the promotions portion of the article and immediately thought of Red Bull. The article points out that in 1981 US manufactures spent more money on promotions than on advertising noting that the promotions are not as effective as advertising to create and establish an image for the product.

            When I read this I thought of Red Bull as being the complete opposite. Red Bull has an entire team, whom my girlfriend works for, that is devoted to going out everyday and promoting Red Bull by giving it away and explaining its effects and potential benefits one-on-one. The team known as The MET (Mobile Energy Team) is effective in my opinion because Red Bull I feel is something that one just has to try and experience for themselves rather than passively watching a TV commercial loaded with the facts. Having a MET member personally speak with you is so much more engaging.

I’m not denying the fact that Red Bull does have TV and magazine ads; it’s just that I don’t think they’re designed for explaining the substance of Red Bull. The TV and magazine ads are designed for establishing and defining an image.

            Other major promotions that Red Bull endorses include the Red Bull Air Race and Red Bull Flugtag. Both of these events cost millions of dollars that could have been spent on other advertising. But what is odd about these events, even though they are promotions, is that they still air on TV as their own entity with Red Bull slapped on it. That is genius, when a promotion grows so big that it becomes an annual event that nearly advertises itself. Also the promotions are successful because they compliment the TV commercials and the slogan of “Red Bull, it gives you wings.” I think Red Bull has mastered promotions because they allowed Air Race, MET, and Flugtag to become a permanent part of the image of Red Bull. Red Bull is associating itself with the idea that their product allows you to clear your mind and focus, so that you can go out and do the sexy action stuff. Or what they could have done for a TV commercial is associate themselves with providing a product that allows you to focus on studying western civilization 102. That’s just boring, and would never work, even though studying is what most students do with their time (or drinking booze, in which case Red Bull also works very well).

The Coca-Cola Company has come out with a humorous and novel ad campaign promoting Coke Zero referring to the fact that it contains zero calories. The TV ads for this campaign are what sparked my interest. Coke has set up multiple lawyers in believing that representative of Coca-Cola are serious about making a lawsuit against Coke-Zero, on what they claim to be taste infringement. I wanted to dissect these TV ads first using each cause of the Product Analysis Checklist (i.e. Formal, Material, Efficient, and Final), then I will further my discussion by using Slate’s “12 Kinds of Advertising.”

            The Formal cause to this ad campaign is showcasing the soft drink, Coke-Zero presenting the distinguishing fact that it has zero calories and still manages to maintain that great original Coke taste. However among the six commercials, only one blatantly mentions that Coke and Coke-Zero taste similar, and all of the other commercials describe the similarity as a “Coke-Zero taste infringement.” This is pretty interesting because you have a company criticizing and comparing itself, only to come to the conclusion that both products taste the same. In my opinion these ads are pretty novel compared to the standard “comparison type” of ad, where Coke will just straight up claim their product to be better tasting than Pepsi.

            The Material Cause would not be its ingredients, but its lack of ingredients. Coke-Zero contains no calories. This fact is very appealing and simple among our lazy calorie laden lives.

            The Efficient Cause answers the question of who created the product, in which this case it’s quite obvious who created it, The Coca-Cola Company. The company found a process in which it could extract calories, further distinguishing it from other brands and products with the Coca-Cola Company.

            The Final Cause answers the question of why the product was made. This product was made to appeal to people that want to watch and count their calories. Coke has made it easier for these people who can’t count by eliminating calories from the equation.

            Lastly I wanted to discuss the possibilities as to what 12 types these ads could fall under.

The first on is the “comparison” claim. As I mentioned above, Coke has compared itself to itself in a way and deductively concluded by using the lawyers to show that it’s all the same thing.

The second is the “on going characters” claim. There are six of these commercial that use the same moronic business men making the same “taste infringement” claim in every commercial.

The third and last is the “unique personality property” claim. This true because zero calories is what makes this product stand out and unique.