Please Don't Re-Run That Molto Dolce Ad
- Thread starter rmbittner
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
When I first heard the advertisement, I thought it was overlong and cheesy. It may have bordered on poor taste. Even without the accent, I know of no female that would talk like that. A female hearing it may be very upset with the concept. However, if you look at some of the tobacco advertisements from the 1940's, 1950's right up into the 1980s it would fit right into that time. We have changed, our society has changed and our viewpoints on effective advertising have changed.
I assume that the sponsor heard the advertisement and approved prior to it being aired. If not, he should have been. The advertiser pays the freight so he/she has a lot to say on what is presented in the Company's name.
Would I purchase the product based on the advertisement? Probably not unless it was a type of pipe tobacco that I smoked. Even if it was a type I smoked, I would purchase a tin and let it stand on its own merit, as I would any other tobacco.
In the end, did I like the commercial? I did crack a small smile.
I assume that the sponsor heard the advertisement and approved prior to it being aired. If not, he should have been. The advertiser pays the freight so he/she has a lot to say on what is presented in the Company's name.
Would I purchase the product based on the advertisement? Probably not unless it was a type of pipe tobacco that I smoked. Even if it was a type I smoked, I would purchase a tin and let it stand on its own merit, as I would any other tobacco.
In the end, did I like the commercial? I did crack a small smile.
seilerjp:
I don't mean to labor this point; I've made my opinion known. But. . .
I have the highest respect for advertising done well. I've done a lot of freelance PR/marketing writing and I think that ads done well can be amazingly effective -- entertaining as well as motivating.
For me, this ad was neither. It made me question the taste level and intelligence of the folks at Sutliff Tobacco. Because even if they didn't write it, they approved it. It's a lowest-common-denominator kind of advertising that doesn't appeal to me in the least. And I hardly think that "lowest common denominator" describes the typical pipe smoker.
YMMV, though.
Bob
I don't mean to labor this point; I've made my opinion known. But. . .
I have the highest respect for advertising done well. I've done a lot of freelance PR/marketing writing and I think that ads done well can be amazingly effective -- entertaining as well as motivating.
For me, this ad was neither. It made me question the taste level and intelligence of the folks at Sutliff Tobacco. Because even if they didn't write it, they approved it. It's a lowest-common-denominator kind of advertising that doesn't appeal to me in the least. And I hardly think that "lowest common denominator" describes the typical pipe smoker.
YMMV, though.
Bob
I listened to the podcast of last week's radio show (faithful as always) on my commute home last night. I have to admit, that I was listening closely for the Molto Dolce ad given the comments here over the last couple days.
So, listen, we all have our own internal gauge for what is and isn't "appropriate" with regards to language and inference. To put it as Bob did, "YMMV." This is too true. I'm not going to judge one creative team's and one client's decision about "appropriate" creative. That's up to each of us as consumers.
From a marketer's perspective, what is important is that the message and media work to create recognition & awareness, purchase intent, and ultimately sales (hopefully of the repeat variety). Let's assess whether this ad hit those marks:
1) I read about, thought about and considered Molto Dolce more since last Thursday than I have ... ever.
2) After hearing the ad, and reading the comments here I sought out some reviews of Molto Dolce.
... So far so good, the ad is hitting on awareness.
3) I am not an aromatic smoker, and the mix of flavours/aromas described in the ad and in subsequent reviews aren't to my taste. So my purchase intent hasn't increased; though this has more to do with product than it does with advertising.
4) I won't be buying Molto Dolce.
As a critical listener of commercials, I have to say that this ad failed to captivate me. I did find it puerile and overly long... there was a point half-way through the ad where my mind wandered and when I came back to focus on the radio show I thought, "Holy moley! Is this ad still going on?" This was followed in thought shortly by, "Ok, I get it. Move on." When we work on creative for radio we're typically looking to fill 15 second or 30 second spots. In a world based on sound bytes and traffic tags, nearly 3 minutes is an eternity; even in 10mph traffic jams.
Not all ads are great, or even good, any marketer knows that they will miss the mark on occasion. Ultimately the client and the creative team will make the call on the lifespan of an ad.
Kudos to the team behind this ad for taking a risk. It will be interesting to see what the life-span of this ad is.
-- Pat
So, listen, we all have our own internal gauge for what is and isn't "appropriate" with regards to language and inference. To put it as Bob did, "YMMV." This is too true. I'm not going to judge one creative team's and one client's decision about "appropriate" creative. That's up to each of us as consumers.
From a marketer's perspective, what is important is that the message and media work to create recognition & awareness, purchase intent, and ultimately sales (hopefully of the repeat variety). Let's assess whether this ad hit those marks:
1) I read about, thought about and considered Molto Dolce more since last Thursday than I have ... ever.
2) After hearing the ad, and reading the comments here I sought out some reviews of Molto Dolce.
... So far so good, the ad is hitting on awareness.
3) I am not an aromatic smoker, and the mix of flavours/aromas described in the ad and in subsequent reviews aren't to my taste. So my purchase intent hasn't increased; though this has more to do with product than it does with advertising.
4) I won't be buying Molto Dolce.
As a critical listener of commercials, I have to say that this ad failed to captivate me. I did find it puerile and overly long... there was a point half-way through the ad where my mind wandered and when I came back to focus on the radio show I thought, "Holy moley! Is this ad still going on?" This was followed in thought shortly by, "Ok, I get it. Move on." When we work on creative for radio we're typically looking to fill 15 second or 30 second spots. In a world based on sound bytes and traffic tags, nearly 3 minutes is an eternity; even in 10mph traffic jams.
Not all ads are great, or even good, any marketer knows that they will miss the mark on occasion. Ultimately the client and the creative team will make the call on the lifespan of an ad.
Kudos to the team behind this ad for taking a risk. It will be interesting to see what the life-span of this ad is.
-- Pat
It has been quite interesting and educational reading everyone's input here.
Two things just for your information:
1. Sutliff, Brian and I all had input on this ad. Sutliff wrote it, I produced it - Sutliff and Brian approved it along with me.
2. It will not run again in it's past form. We are excerpting and splicing a couple of small pieces of it to try to make it about 30 seconds, and with much less sexual innuendo.
Two things just for your information:
1. Sutliff, Brian and I all had input on this ad. Sutliff wrote it, I produced it - Sutliff and Brian approved it along with me.
2. It will not run again in it's past form. We are excerpting and splicing a couple of small pieces of it to try to make it about 30 seconds, and with much less sexual innuendo.
Kevin, can you suggest that Sutliff run one of these on Great Outdoors? Instead of an Italian woman... We could hear a gruff lumberjack lusting over his pipe tobacco :P just think back to Monty Python... "he's a lumberjack and he's OK!"
Honestly, the sexual innuendo of the ad isn't what bothered me at all. Afterall, it is a product primarily marketed towards men and for an adult audience. I know, the tone is not for everyone and I get that.
However, the length of the ad just lost me. I think in shorter segments it would much better recieved.
However, the length of the ad just lost me. I think in shorter segments it would much better recieved.
I don't see how the ad was "condescendingly sexist".
Was it too long? Check.
Full of double entendres? Check.
Using sex to sell? Check.
Controversial? Check.
But what was sexist? The smooth-talking woman bamboozled the man out of his pipe. Hardly sexist!
I'm reminded of Bobbi Flekman trying to explain to Spinal Tap the difference between "sexy" and "sexist".
Was it too long? Check.
Full of double entendres? Check.
Using sex to sell? Check.
Controversial? Check.
But what was sexist? The smooth-talking woman bamboozled the man out of his pipe. Hardly sexist!
I'm reminded of Bobbi Flekman trying to explain to Spinal Tap the difference between "sexy" and "sexist".
yaddy306:
"Sexist" because it appealed to a well-known stereotype about some men's sexual fantasies regarding women. It presented an image of a male smoker that it assumed was true for the entire listening audience, and it presented a stereotypical, sexualized image of a woman that played to those male smokers' presumed fantasies. "Condescending" because it treated the entire listening audience as if we were motivated to purchase a tobacco product solely on the basis of titillation -- or, at best, a slight amount of actual information buried under sexual double entendre.
Ask any of the female forum members to describe a particular blend, and I guarantee you that none of them will quote a Penthouse Letter when they do so.
I'm surprised that anyone thought this was actually sexy.
Bob
"Sexist" because it appealed to a well-known stereotype about some men's sexual fantasies regarding women. It presented an image of a male smoker that it assumed was true for the entire listening audience, and it presented a stereotypical, sexualized image of a woman that played to those male smokers' presumed fantasies. "Condescending" because it treated the entire listening audience as if we were motivated to purchase a tobacco product solely on the basis of titillation -- or, at best, a slight amount of actual information buried under sexual double entendre.
Ask any of the female forum members to describe a particular blend, and I guarantee you that none of them will quote a Penthouse Letter when they do so.
I'm surprised that anyone thought this was actually sexy.
Bob
@Gray
There are plans to produce more product specific ads both in banner form and audio for the radio show as the year progresses. The radio ads are expensive to produce, so they likely will not update often.
Much obliged, Kevin, but I will say that the innuendo was not the issue. For me, at least. I'm no prude.
My issue is that it seemed, for all the reasons rmbittner pointed out, to be alienating to female or feminists members. But I am interested to see if the changes made will tone this down a little bit. In any case, I appreciate the willingness to reconsider.
My issue is that it seemed, for all the reasons rmbittner pointed out, to be alienating to female or feminists members. But I am interested to see if the changes made will tone this down a little bit. In any case, I appreciate the willingness to reconsider.
It would seem that I am in the minority here, but a nice set of knockers can get me to buy just about anything.
Peck, I have a couple of front doors to sell ya!
The women I know can handle stupid puerile male oriented sexism with aplomb. It's what they expect of us and it serves as proof of women's innate superiority. And, women can dish it out right back at us.
The biggest problem seems to be the length of the spot. Having worked on a couple of hundred commercials I've learned a couple of things. If you can't pitch the product in 15 seconds, you're not doing the job correctly. Beyond that range, you're elaborating, which is fine if it's still informational in an entertaining way. But if you're going to go beyond 30 seconds, the writing and delivery better have top notch sparkle and bite or your audience either goes to sleep, turns the channel, or starts to resent your product.
- Status