Adverts, or Adverse?

I've discussed tv commercials in previous columns. Usually I see humour in ads that are intended to be funny. I recognize that many ads are intended to be light-hearted.

But not all ads are successful.

Some ads leave me scratching my head, wondering who came up with the copy, who approved the copy, and after the commercial was shot, who approved the final product.

For instance, Scotia Bank is currently running an ad for their Scene VISA card, which offers rewards that can be redeemed at the Cineplex cinema chain.

The ad shows several "customers" purchasing movie tickets and snacks, all being tld that their purchase is free.

Rather than fist-pumping and celebrating, these customers are completely baffled, with many of them asking, "Why is it free?"

Excuse me? Who cares why? It's FREE. Say 'thank-you,' go find a seat and enjoy the movie.

Another head-scratcher, and one that I find somewhat offensive, is the latest in a series of ads for Febreeze fabric freshener.

This series shows scenes where various smelly trash is left laying about, then sprayed with Febreeze. People are blindfolded and brought into the scene and asked to describe what they smell: flowers and potpourri and summer meadows after a rain are some of the responses. They are all shocked to discover they are sitting in a virtual trash heap.

The latest offering introduces viewers to the Azerbaijan wrestling team, who douse all of their apparently very smelly equipment with the Febreeze after a work-out.

Once again people are blindfolded then brought in to describe what they are smelling, and once again they are tricked by the fresh scent of this wound product.

I have absolutely no problem with the concept behind this ad. A product that can eliminate the scent of rancid sweat from sporting equipment and clothing gets a solid 'thumb-up' from me.

I just don't understand why it had to be the Azerbaijani wrestling team; the underlying message I derive from this is that the Azerbaijani people are, perhaps, the smelliest people on earth.

Wouldn't just any wrestling team suffice? Why is it necessary to assign a cultural identity to this "smelly" team?

I usually reject political correctness for its own sake, but in this case I believe it is appropriate to object to this unwarranted depiction.

There are some very funny ads, some of which have been running for quite a while. (Let's face it, 'funny' never gets tired.)

One ad that always makes me laugh is for DentaStix, a treat for dogs that also cleans their teeth. The ad starts with a voice-over describing "doggie dentures," and show a few dogs smiling -- with human dentures.

It's foolish, you know the images are faked, and yet it's genuinely funny.

I am not the sort of customer that ad agencies and advertisers want to talk much about. I enjoy a good commercial, but rarely does a commercial make me want to run out and purchase a product or service.

A commercial might get me thinking about a product, and I may eventually, after further research, make that purchase, but typically a commercial holds little more than entertainment value, to me.

Of course, part of the problem is that I might not actually need, nor even use, a particular product.

The diaper commercial where the baby boy sprays the room as if with a firehouse is hilarious, but I have no need for Pampers.

Another problem -- and there have been studies that bear this out -- is that a funny commercial may be very enjoyable and memorable, although the actual product being advertised might not be recalled.

Some ads are memorable, both for their humour and the products they represent: the "Hi, I'm a Mac" or the Geico ads, for instance.

Others have people laughing at the water cooler, but often only describing the humorous antics, unable to recall which product was being advertised.

Still others are, perhaps, effective despite their attempts at humour and light-heartedness. Really, do the "lifestyle" commercials for feminine products really influence anyone?

We've come a long way, though. I'm sure there are many of you who remember when a "commercial break" was just that: a break in the program where the host or some other spokesperson faced the camera and gave a spiel about a particular product, often holding it up and giving the viewing audience a smile and a wink.

I also remember an ad from the 60s for Playtex bras, where the model says "Ive got something to show you!" and begins to unbutton her blouse. A wolf whistle is heard, and she stops and instead shows us a bra mounted on a plastic bust model.

Today there is no hesitation to show a bra as it is intended to be used.

I often wonder whether effective or not, whether memorable or not, whether humorous or more sombre, if in the long run commercials -- and print ads, for that matter -- are simply a symptom of an affluent and overly-consumeristic society, one that cares more about keeping up with the Joneses -- both in terms of consumers themselves and the manufacturers and distributors who profit from them -- than it does about the well-being of society as a whole.

I'm not saying we abandon our modern, comfortable lifestyle and head back to Walnut grove with the Ingalls. But, maybe, as a society we care too much about "stuff," about having the latest and greatest "stuff," about having more "stuff" than anyone else.

Manufacturers are chasing "market share," each seeking to increase theirs. To them there is no limit: they would be happy to put a competitor out of business, for that would mean they would gain more market share.

I doubt there is much concern over consumers, their pocket books, or frankly their health: drink more, eat more, take this pill, buy, buy, buy.

Let's face it, the whole purpose of an ad isn't to convince us to buy a particular brand once we've decided we need a particular product, it's to convince us we cannot go another day without buying that particular product, whether we need it or not.

I enjoy an effective commercial, especially ones that are truly funny. But I object to ads that are insulting, and ads that are blatantly defining a "need" that does not exist.

But… that's just my opinion.