14 Responses to “I Have Absolutely No Desire for a Snickers”

1. Vince Williams 5 February 2007 at 10:37 am #

   I thought it was lame, too, and I’m gay. That ad agency wouldn’t get my business (if I did advertise).
2. Cord Silverstein 5 February 2007 at 11:50 am #

   Ok, we now have one gay guy and one guy who is very in touch with his feminine side who say this commercial sucks. Who else? We could get a whole We Are The World thing going here.
3. JP Sherman 5 February 2007 at 2:52 pm #

   I saw this the other day too, and I was a little annoyed by it. Something just didn’t sit right with me. However, it took me a few hours to really get a clear thought about my reaction to it.

   1: Consider the target market… there are more women who watch the super bowl than watch the regular season, during the regular season, your target market has a much more “traditional male” audience, so, Snickers… counting on the fact that there will be a more mixed audience on this day, they wanted to take a risk.

   2: Marketing by shock value. I dont remember a lot of the ads from yesterday… the GTA/ Coke spoof was pretty cool, and I remember the robot suicide one because it left a really bad taste in my mouth… and then, I remembered the snickers ad. Not because it made me hungry, but because of the shock value. It was very “Dada” (early 20th century art movement – influencing the surrealists). It relied on the shock value to imbed itself into the memory.

   3: The kiss was interesting, I liked that part… it was something I hadn’t seen before in that context (a good play on Lady and the Tramp). However, when they did the chest hair rip, that was just confusing and irritating. When they said “do something manly” I expected them to talk about football or something more stereotypically male – this would have closed the shock – resolution gap.

   4: However, once they cleansed their budding physical love with pain, I no longer cared about the product, I was just annoyed that they closed it with something that was odd and unfulfilling. In a sense, it was almost stereotypical “overcompensation” that didnt resolve the shock and didnt communicate to the audience that “snickers is sooo good, you’ll lose yourself in the moment”.

   I would have closed the commercial by having one of the guys smile and pull out another snickers but that’s just me… there’s something about homoeroticism and football that just goes well together.
4. Cord Silverstein 5 February 2007 at 3:29 pm #

   JP, WOW!! You definitely thought this through. Great thoughts, thank you. I guess the bottom line for me is, does a candy bar company want to have two men kissing or pulling their chest hair out associated with their brand? It seems both in the short and long term, it’s a loser.
5. JP Sherman 5 February 2007 at 4:12 pm #

   I think that’s a great point. Because they failed to properly close the commercial, they end up with the kiss and the hair rip being associated with the brand. If they would have done it right, I would have left the commercial with the feeling that snickers is so good, i’d do anything to have some and that the experience of the snickers makes me forget everything else.

   So, i guess from a marketing perspective.. it was a good idea poorly executed because I remember the kiss and the hair rip, and not the snickers experience.

   but, I also think that snickers has enough brand equity to experiment with something ballsy like man-on-man-on-nougat action and get away with it fairly unscathed.
6. Cord Silverstein 5 February 2007 at 5:44 pm #

   JP, I applaud Snickers putting themselves out on this, absolutely! I wish more brands would be willing to take chances. Unfortunately, this one I believe fell a bit short of expectations. Thanks again for your thoughts.
7. Randy H. 5 February 2007 at 11:25 pm #

   Thank you Cord for allowing me to see this. I will now have nightmares. What were the people at Snickers thinking? Yes, JP, I read your comments (aska simple question to JP and get a college grade disertation).

   I am seeing a lot commercials trying to show more glamor and “pizzazz” than actual a marketing message. What happened? The best commercials I have seen recently have been from Careerbuilder.com, and those starred monkeys.

   I am all for an ad group going out to try something new, “hip” and fresh, however, they have to make sure that they remeber to tell the market what they are trying to sell.
8. Cord Silverstein 5 February 2007 at 11:28 pm #

   LOL, Randy, I hear ya… But as I said, I have to give them props for trying something different. Thanks for commenting Randy, come back and see us soon.
9. Vince Williams 5 February 2007 at 11:31 pm #

   “Man-on-man-nougat action”. I’m going to steal that. Nice.
10. Vince Williams 5 February 2007 at 11:36 pm #

    Any man who likes Beowulf has got to be alright.
11. Cord Silverstein 5 February 2007 at 11:40 pm #

    “Man-on-man-nougat action” – That’s a quote I would not of ever guessed would be on this blog. Thanks Vince.

    Hey Vince, why don’t you head over to MyBlogLog and sign up?
12. JP Sherman 6 February 2007 at 10:26 am #

    @ Vince:
    Thanks feel free to steal it. You wouldnt happen to have a blog as well? I’d like to see your thoughts
13. Vince Williams 6 February 2007 at 10:25 pm #

    I’ll check it out when I get a chance, Cord, thanks.

    I don’t have a blog, JP, but I’ll definitely drop by and chat.

Leave a Reply

• Lifestream
• Popular
• Comments
• Tags