Well? What do you think?
I ask because Ralph (a friend and mentor) asked me that question last week after I posted George Tannenbaum’s critique of the recent entertainment-heavy ads for Audi and Dell.
In Tannenbaum’s post, he argued for Dave Trott’s thesis that all purposeful communications must contain three elements:
Since Ralph’s question about my opinion of the Geico ads came in response to another critique of ads using Trott’s model, I wanted to stick with it.
What Do I Think?
Here’s what I said to Ralph… and he agreed:
I think Geico succeeds in all three areas, plus they get bonus points…
Impact… we never know what they’re going to hit us with… but it always seems to come from interesting angles. And they invest enough in production to never let ads grow stale. There’s always something new hitting us.
Communication… regardless of the humor, they always share that we could save 15% or more in 15 minutes or less by switching to Geico. They are Swiss-watch-like consistent with their core message.
Persuasion… their humor is always directly tied to the sales message… using the joke, not superfluously, but to reinforce their communication.
Plus, they get bonus points, for running multiple campaigns that appeal to multiple personality types at the same time. Have you noticed that?
What do you think of Geico’s campaign, in general? I’m sure we can all point to a rotten apple or two in the bunch given they write and produce so many ads, but in general, I think they’ve excelled at getting their core message across and becoming known – and largely liked – before they’re needed.
And isn’t that one of the primary measures of any advertising?