Slate's Bizbox
the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

Ad It UpSeth Stevenson takes readers' questions about the 12 categories of commercials.


Posted Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 4:46 PM ET

Seth Stevenson was online at Washingtonpost.com on Thursday, July 26, to talk about Donald Gunn's theory of the 12 basic ads and the methodology of advertising. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

(Continued from page 1)

Seth Stevenson: Those Sonic ads with the comedians waiting in a drive-thru are an example of "associated user content"—people who eat at Sonic are funny and down to earth.

But appealing shots of food don't really fit into the 12 categories, as there's no particular selling idea involved. Donald Gunn refers to these as "bite and smile" ads. You've seen millions of these for chewing gum.

_______________________

Charlotte, N.C.: Can you talk about "best" without talking about ads' impact on behavior? When I do focus-group workshops, I always use the example of Alka-Seltzer's ads from the '70s—the "I can't believe I ate the whole thing" campaign, which won awards at the same time that sales actually went down. People loved the ads but didn't buy the product, so as original and entertaining as they were, they were far from the best.

On the other hand, there are campaigns we hate—PBS fund drives, while technically not ads, come to mind—that continue because they work. In fact, I speculate that they work because, in fact, they seem amateurish and we'd be skeptical of a slick organization asking for money. But I also point to the repetitive headache ads that no one is going to list as memorable ... except that when you're in the pharmacy looking for something to cure that pounding head, their annoying little jingle will come to mind. So how does impact factor into these types?

Seth Stevenson: This is always an issue for an ad critic. Am I reviewing the ad based on how entertained I was by it, and how good a piece of art it is? Or am I assessing how effective I think it is as a sales pitch or branding effort? I try to do a little of both. It can be very hard to know how effective an ad campaign is, as so many other factors go into the success of a product (the quality of the product itself, the customer service offered by the company, etc.). And to completely ignore the artistry and humor of ads is silly—sometimes an ad can be downright brilliant, and stick in the popular imagination for decades, regardless of how effective it was. That may not be much solace for the company behind the product, but it adds a little sunshine into the TV viewer's life. It's worth noting that and handing out kudos where they're due.

_______________________

Washington: My generally antagonistic stance on commercials tends to make me fascinated with the workings behind them. Thanks for a really interesting read. It prompted a question, though: Under what category would the famed Sony Bravia advertisements fall? I mean, I think these are beautiful short films, but fail as advertisements because there is no real connection between the brand and the ad at all. To find the link, I had to look up the ad by the song I knew was used in it, rather than the product, as I'd completely forgotten it. Is difficulty of classification in these "12 ads" a good indicator that an ad maybe isn't doing its job?

Also, thank you for pointing out that our new, all-Internet-all-the-time culture really hasn't change the fundamentals of how advertising works. We seem to think (just as we've thought with every change of communications tech) that we've changed core human interaction by changing the medium, but I really don't think that's the case. Thanks, and I really enjoy reading your Ad Report Cards on Slate.

Seth Stevenson: The Sony Bravia "Balls" ad (in which thousands of colorful superballs bounce down a San Francisco street) is an example of one of the formats: Exaggerated graphic demonstrating the benefit of the product. The idea is that when you watch a Sony Bravia TV, you will see colors as rich and intense as you would if you were surrounded by a flood rainbow-hued superballs.

I agree that the ad is not so strong on "getting credit" (that is, having the viewer remember which brand it was for). How could they have done this better? One facile way (I wouldn't actually recommend it) would be to have the balls roll to a stop and spell out "Sony," or somesuch.

_______________________

Washington: Donald Gunn, the guy with the theory about the 12 different kinds of ads, sounds a bit like Robert McKee, the screenwriting guru who's lampooned in the movie "Adaptation." (Did you know that there hasn't been a new genre since Fellini invented the mockumentary?) Which brings me to my question. My genre is thriller. What's yours?

Seth Stevenson: I agree—were Gunn to become as well-known as McKee, I think you'd start to see warring camps arguing over the merits and usefulness of his guidelines.

My favorite genre? I like mash-ups. Like "The Big Lebowski" is half stoner comedy and half Raymond Chandler mystery, with just a dash of western thrown in with the Sam Elliott bits.

_______________________

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Slate contributor Seth Stevenson has written for Rolling Stone, the New York Times Magazine, Details, the New Republic Online, and New York Magazine.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post