You can always count on commercial radio to debase public taste when there is a buck to be made. This ad is a stunning display of the 'bottom feeder' mentality of the industry: The listener/consumer/customer is presented as a "mature MILF"- with chicken's feet hands - clinging to a 'toy boy'. You, the advertiser, are invited to join him in separating our Baby Boomer MILF (look it up) from her money. No big deal, except that the Commercial Radio Industry is dogged by an image among advertisers of being less than elegant... tin pan alley, uncool, cheap. Why? Because it is all those things - from the bottom to the top. Breakfast crews strive to 'out gross' their competitors with stunts. It's official that commentators like Jones and Laws can be bribed to change their comments. To read the eulogies for Stan Zamanek, you'd think he was a decent human being when in fact he was a man who spread hatred and racial division. He had all the poison of a Jones, without the intelligence or the vocabulary. His tirades were aural sewerage. And so, he was a star of commercial radio. The commercial radio industry is a perfect example of a brand defining itself by its actions. The result: how many big brands use it? Name two. Look at this ad: would you spend money with the cool dudes who fell about laughing when the agency presented this 'big idea'? No? If I want manure, I'll buy a horse.
4 comments:
Denigrating Stan Zemanek when he's six feet under? That's a bit low. Stan used 'simple' vocabulary because he was always about representing the common man, and didn’t need to hide under the pretentiousness that Jones and Laws sometimes do.
Here’s two big brands that use radio: Ford and McDonalds!
For the record I’m not a fan of this print ad you’re critiquing, but I don’t think you can blame these pioneers of radio. I think we all know it’s the advertising agency’s creative department that would have used persuasive ‘selling in’ of their big campaign ideas. They are trying to cut through by using trendy and shocking ideas, rather than working smarter using the fundamentals. I too can't stand this, as it really does tarnish the industry. I bet they charged big bucks for it too :)
PS to substantiate my previous comments, I worked with Stan for 2 years in 1999, so can attest to his principles and intelligence.
Oh give me a break Cameron - the big bad advertisers 'pressured' the station decision makers in to running with the ad??
Let me guess, apart from knowing Zemanek personally, you also work in radio right? Thanks for such an unbiased view on radio and Stan.
Ultimate accountability for an advertising campaign lies with the clients who sign off on the creative.
And no, I don’t work in advertising, just a responsible brand decision maker.
I don't work in radio at all. I run an advertising agency and am medium-indifferent.
I agree that the buck stops with the client sign-off, and so in this instance am glad they're not a client of mine.
My main rant here was the inappropriate comments regarding Stan which I still stand by. I worked with Stan, not for him or for any of his campaigns.
Post a Comment