Some advertising seems to have a language of its own, intended to convince, connive, cajole and otherwise fool its readers into buying into the brand. Some of these little tricks are the kinds of things that stick in my brain and bug me until I figure them out enough to be able to scoff at them. Sometimes they get under the radar.
Either way, I’ve never seen such a great example and concise explanation of these techniques as in an article I found referenced by Advertising Lab called “The ‘Language’ of Advertising™” by Nancy Friedman.
The example is a poster for Comcast High-Speed internet. At first glance, it doesn’t make much sense. On a black background, large type reads “We own Faster™. Please slow your shopping ’sprees.’ Comcast High-Speed Internet with PowerBoost™.” As I think it over, the grammar of the first sentence bugs me, while the quotes around “sprees” seems out of place. Ok, I’ll bite – I read the breakdown, and am surprised by how manipulative the ad is. She lists anthimeria, pompus capitalization, pretentious TMing, unnecessary quotation marks, and gratuitous fictional secret sauce as the weapons of choice in this ad copy. As I read the explanations, I find myself nodding – yes, I see that, yes, that’s a lowhanded tactic, yes, I see that all the time and it never registers because I see it all the time.
As advertisers, this kind of article should be a red flag. People notice when advertising copy is stupid. People get offended when advertisers insult their intelligence. And mostly – people are numb to your most blatant efforts. This kind of advertising is reminiscent of early 20th century “jingles,” with oddly highlighted words and short-is-better communication. Time for an update!
In some cases it’s not just stupid advertising but a
combination of more. Consider for instance advertising
for financial products (in the extreme case some Madoff-
related investment) and the role of the experts / pundits.
A famous video with Peter Schiff and a number of other
pundits shows them a while back ago. Most in that video
are clearly the worst pundits who made it on to TV.
The viewer instantly knows in that case how things really
worked out. That was the financial media hype in the
previous past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
It should be noted that the media are increasingly in
trouble, declining ad revenue / viewers.
Searchwords if interested to follow that up, using Google
and then clicking NEWS to the suggested searchwords:
“newspaper revenue”
“media revenue” etc., and similar to that effect.
No reason to lose hope, fall into a depression.