Is there any point to great 'advertising' if the product is flawed/suspect/crap?
In this post on Scamp about Net10's 'evil' campaign - featuring firstly that clip of the mobile phone in the microwave and then the full on cartoon tv spots - there was much debate about the whys and wherefores of the ad idea and execution but, for me, it only gets going when commenter Alan Wolk aka tangerinetoad wades in with this nugget.
'I'd like to suggest, as an experiment, that all of you who like this commercial and/or campaign do what the average consumer will do upon seeing it, which is to go over to Google and enter this phrase:
net10 phone service reviews
Then click on the first couple of results. Including the one from Amazon.com
You'll quickly see why the serious problem with these ads, and why, given the online comments about Net10s customer service (or lack thereof) they probably have a net negative effect.'
The response from other comments was along the lines of 'what can the agency do if the product is broken? we just do the advertising?'
This approach to advertising has had it. Finished.
It's basic insight stuff. Anyone can now search for real reviews and get a picture of the reality of the product. The agency should do this first then review the strategy to address real perceptions from real customers (or ex-customers).
This is not brain surgery.
But that might interfere with the making of smartypants ads to win industry back-slapping awards. Which is sadly often the case.
Don't get me wrong, the 'ads' are great - just for the wrong product it would seem.
And thats where it all falls over.
