Do Offensive Ads Turn You Away?

[rezzy]

So, I assume weve all seen the Godaddy commercials using overtly sexual commercials.

Do seeing those make you want to stop using them? Or have you signed up after seeing one?

The Godaddy commercials seem to go above and beyond any of the other commercials.

[vangogh]

Very few things offend me. Those ads don't drive me away, but they also don't make me run out and sign up either.

I do use GoDaddy, but it's because I find it easy to manage my domains with them. The commercials never enter into it. The commercials seem pretty stupid to me, but they don't offend me. Like I said few things truly offend me.

[Harold Mansfield]

Very few things offend me either,however there have been times when I have seen a commercial or marketing campaign and said to myself, "If that was my business, I would have never done that". (Go Daddy isn't one of them).

Let's face it, the internet is full of geeks, younger males, and people who don't get out much. Go Daddy is playing to their target audience.

They are also the only registrar advertising on a national scale, so any noob would immediately go there not having heard of any other registrar.

I applaud them, if their commercials were all "tech speak and bandwidth babble", they would be wasting their time...no average person would understand...and they are appealing to the average person (man).

[cbscreative]

I suspect there are many in the same group I'm in. I use GoDaddy "in spite of" the commercials and definitely not because of. The commercials have absolutely no influence on my decision. I imagine there are some people who would opt not to use them strictly because of the commercials. And I have no idea how much business they are attracting with them. Obviously, something is working because GoDaddy is very successful.

I think measuring the success could be very difficult if not impossible. Since I use them in spite of the commercials, how can they really know how effective their advertising is? I've probably registered, or had a client register, right after one of their media blitzes without even knowing it. If they had assumed the registration was somehow related to their advertising, they would have been wrong.

I realize there are many ways they measure these kinds of metrics, but I believe any method of measurement is subject to a lot of assumptions that can easily be wrong. Maybe I'm just too analytical. Good question though, it makes for an interesting discussion.

[billbenson]

I think it comes down to target audiences.

Everybody seems to get offended by something. I was kicked off a legal forum once for using the word "gringo". According to wiki its not generally an offensive word and was pertinent to my legal question. Moderator said it offended her, Wikipedia was garbage and kicked me off the forum. Go figure.

I'd say something like godaddy's marketing as opposed to other methods doesn't really buy them anything. Doesn't offend me though and I use godaddy because they are one of the few quality registrars out there. Has nothing to do with the ad. Maybe it brings in enough niche business and doesn't chase that much away that it works. CB Steve doesn't like it, but still uses them because they have a good service?

Take the cave man ads for Geico though. I'm sure somebody is offended by them, but when a new one comes out, I stop the TV box and go back and watch it. Some were pretty funny IMO. I bet they did more good than harm.

[vangogh]

I'd agree with everyone about this being their target market, which I would guess is mostly young males. If anything the commercials only help with that demographic. One other thing about the ads is that very early on when GoDaddy started advertising on the Super Bowl they had an add that was rejected so they moved it online and made a new ad for tv.

I'd imagine that ended up being more successful for them and that it's now somewhat expected for them to push the limits on what's acceptable. Something tells me they now create commercials that they know and expect will be rejected just so they can gain some press for the rejected commercial.

[nealrm]

Well it appears the ad has done exactly what it was designed to do - get people to talk about GoDaddy. That style of add is not intended to get people to use the product directly, it is attended for brand reconition only. Based on the comments above, it appears to have worked well.

As for not using product with offensive ads, I would have to say that some ads do turn me off the product. Hardy's ad for thick burgers is not really offensive, but they turn me away from buying one. I'm also starting to get offended at ads aimed at promoting children websites. Offering "Free" games to get them to a website that is little more than a trap to get them to buy upgrades. The ads themselve are not really offensive but the concept behind the ad is.

[Harold Mansfield]

I remember a Super Bowl ad a while back from Outpost.com where they shot hamsters through a hole in the wall...all of which missed and hit the side of the wall.
Although they showed the hamsters get up and walk away, I remember thinking to myself, "How many kids are watching this and have hamsters and how many parents will be angry that they think this is funny?"

I would have never done that on Superbowl Sunday.

[KristineS]

Advertising is advertising. It's designed to get people to buy/want/watch and some companies will do whatever is allowed to achieve that goal. There are much greater problems in the world than what someone chooses to say or do in an advertisement. If I'm going to get up in arms over something I try to make it something that could really make a difference if it were fixed.

[Harold Mansfield]

Advertising is advertising. It's designed to get people to buy/want/watch and some companies will do whatever is allowed to achieve that goal. There are much greater problems in the world than what someone chooses to say or do in an advertisement. If I'm going to get up in arms over something I try to make it something that could really make a difference if it were fixed.

Exactly. These days you can't swing a dead cat around without offending someone..actually I'm pretty sure I just offended an animal rights group somewhere.

[vangogh]

My cat (an imaginary one, since I don't actually own a cat) is quickly dialing the ASPCA.

Offending people isn't always a bad thing when it comes to marketing and advertising. For example if you're marketing to one of the two major U.S. political parties you would do well to offend the party you aren't targeting. Sure you lose half the general population, but you also stood out that much more to the other half which is the one you're targeting.

The GoDaddy ads like offend some, just not their target audience who most likely thinks them among the greatest ads ever to hit to tv. Most of us aren't particularly swayed or offended.

[Spider]

I am inclined to not use Godaddy because of the ads - not because I find them offensive but because I find them irrelevant. If a tech company (my thinking goes) thinks an ad like this is a good portrayal of their business, it doesn't say much for their technical capabilities. Likewise, the name Godaddy is a loser, in my book.

I use Directnic - better name - no silly advertising - good products - great service.

As for GEICO, I thought the caveman ads silly and irrelevant, and the 'eyes' campaign almost as bad - very amatuerish both of them. The GEICO gecko was better and, at least, passed on a little information about the benefits the company offered.

Just because an ad gets people talking about the company doesn't mean that talk is positive, and negative talk doesn't particularly translate into positive sales results. Most times the talk is about the ad while the company and/or product is lost entirely. How many times have you liked, laughed, pondered or been affected by an ad and not remember what they were advertising?

And what good is that to anybody?

[nealrm]

In terms of advertising positive talk about a product you sell is best, this is followed by positive talk about an ad, negitive talk about an ad, no discussion about your company and last by negitive talk about your product. So while it is best to have a positive ad, a negitive ad still get people to remember your name.

[vangogh]

If a tech company (my thinking goes) thinks an ad like this is a good portrayal of their business, it doesn't say much for their technical capabilities.

Why would an ad like that make you question their technical abilities? Granted it's not going to increase your knowledge of their technical abilities, but I don't think it should make you question them.

In all honestly if most companies produced commercials to highlight their technical abilities, most of their users would only be confused. Not all, but most.

You have to remember we're not all the same. I'm like you in just wanting information about benefits and features. That doesn't work on everyone though, which is why many companies will produce different kinds of ads. Each is usually aimed at a different kind of personality. You mentioned the GEICO ads. I'd bet the gecko and cavemen ads were each directed at a different type of person in their market. You favored the gecko. Another person favored the cavemen. One thing both do well is connect the commercial with the brand. And it's hard to say the cavemen commercials are failures. They did become popular enough to launch a tv series, albeit a very short lived one. Some people out there certainly like that commercial.

[Spider]

In terms of advertising positive talk about a product you sell is best, this is followed by positive talk about an ad, negitive talk about an ad, no discussion about your company and last by negitive talk about your product. So while it is best to have a positive ad, a negitive ad still get people to remember your name.So what? - If what I remember about the company is negative, I ain't gonna buy - even if I remember every last word of the ad's jingle!

[Spider]

Why would an ad like that make you question their technical abilities? Granted it's not going to increase your knowledge of their technical abilities, but I don't think it should make you question them...Godaddy is a technical company. "Technical" is what they do. Technical processes are what they advertise. Technical stuff is the only reason I might buy from them, no matter how little I might know about technical things. The less I know, the more I need to be convinced they can do what I need. And the blonde police hottie unzipping her jacket provocatively does not suggest that they even have an interest in taking care of my technical needs.

I would doubt the ability of a heart surgeon if he advertised using the Budweiser frogs. I would doubt the ability of an accounting firm if they advertised their services like a Sandals Beach Resort.

The point is that the whole of the ad says something about the company and its brand. Anything that might suggest the accountant could syphon off some of your money to spend on lavish vacations, will not serve the advertiser well. Anything that suggests the heart surgeon may operate on you while under the influence of alcohol, will detract from the effectiveness of the ad.

Different aspects of an ad cannot be taken in isolation. So much of an advertisement is subliminal.

[vangogh]

Technical stuff is the only reason I might buy from them, no matter how little I might know about technical things

Again that's you. You're not everyone. Just because a company is technical doesn't mean it's the only way they can or should market themselves.

People have different personality types and respond to different things. For a certain group of people (expressives) technical stuff is completely irrelevant, even for a technical company. What they want to know most is that other people have used and enjoyed your products. They want to belong. A handful of testimonials will count much more with these people than anything you say, technical or otherwise, about their product.

You might want to see a technical company talking about technical stuff, but understand that's not important to all of GoDaddy's potential customers. Speaking as someone who does work all the time with domains and hosting, I can tell you people don't ever ask me about anything technical in regards to where to buy either. Most just ask me who they should use and price is the dominant concern.

Here's the ad they use in search engines when you search for the single word domain

$6.99 Domains ·GoDaddy.com
Why Pay More? Compare Us. FREE Hosting w/Site Builder & more.

I suppose they mention technical things with the words domains, hosting, and site builder, but the focus on the ad is a lower price. I'd bet the lower price means more to their customers than anything technical the company could say.

When you watch their commercials they're clearly using sex to sell. That may not work with you, but look around at advertising in general. It certainly works for many people.

I'm not suggesting you should use GoDaddy. Obviously to you it's important that as a technical company they should focus their advertising on the tech side of things. I'm just suggesting that not everyone sees it the same way. Their ads don't work on you, but they do work on other people. Prior to their first Super Bowl commercial not many people knew who they were. Now they're probably the first company that comes to mind for most people when thinking about domains.

[Dan Furman]

As for GEICO, I thought the caveman ads silly and irrelevant, and the 'eyes' campaign almost as bad - very amatuerish both of them. The GEICO gecko was better and, at least, passed on a little information about the benefits the company offered.


Both absolutely brilliant, and I would guess both were very, very effective.

Geico is almost a household word now, and a serious insurance contender.

Know what Geico stands for? Government Employees Insurance Company. They once only served a small niche. Now they compete - strongly - with everyone. Their advertising budget and ads are the reason.

Advertising can be soooo misunderstood by many. The whole "that commercial doesn't make me want to buy the product" argument usually completely misses the point.

[phanio]

Depends on how offensive the ad is. But, if I don't like an ad the first time I see it, my mind just shuts it out the next time.

What I like about watching other ads is trying to decode them. When I see an ad, I like to think about what market they are targeting, are they using the right channel, the right message and then, try to decide if I will ever remember it if I am in the makret for their product or service.

Guess it just keeps me thinking about ways to improve my own marketing.

[Spider]

...Geico is almost a household word now, and a serious insurance contender.
Know what Geico stands for? Government Employees Insurance Company. They once only served a small niche. Now they compete - strongly - with everyone. Their advertising budget and ads are the reason... Bit late with the news, there, Dan. Geico has been selling to the general public more or less since inception, and in a more targetted fashion since probably the 1950s or before. Warren Buffet was investing in the company by the 1970s and took them over in the 1990s, if memory services me correctly. I believe they have only been advertising in the current mode for the past ten years.

Judging by comments from the company, the gecko ads are more profitable than other current ads, and despite the massive increase in advertising expenditure overall during the past decade, GEICO is still only the sixth largest auto insurer, I think. As far as I can tell, they have been a household name for the past 40 years.

[huggytree]

you create your own customers...go daddy is getting the customers it wants..

if you offend 25%, but attract 75% isnt that a smart thing to do?

as a businessman i work for anyone with money...doesnt matter who their are or what they believe. but as a consumer i dont buy products which i dont support...

an example-i dont buy anything from Heinz...from catchup to Orida french fries.. i dont like her politics and dont want my money going to them...nor do i buy Dixie chicks cd's anymore.

[Spider]

Technical stuff is the only reason I might buy from them, no matter how little I might know about technical things Again that's you. You're not everyone. Just because a company is technical doesn't mean it's the only way they can or should market themselves.That's not just me, though. Unless Godaddy is selling other products that are not technical in nature. (In which case, I withdraw.)

If a company's product line is solely apples, then apples is the only reason people will buy from them. That's all I'm saying. Now if you can sell more apples by depicting Jed Clampett discovering oil in his backyard, or a sexy-looking female motorcycle cop make suggestive homosexual comments to another good-looking female driver, or by having a bikini-clad beauty hold up a jar of pickles, then I would be surprised. And it doesn't make a bit of difference what personality type one is - it depends on the public wanting to buy apples.



...Prior to their first Super Bowl commercial not many people knew who they were. Now they're probably the first company that comes to mind for most people when thinking about domains.Surely that is because they are the only domain registrar and hosting company that advertises to such an extent. They could have used the silly Jed Clampett example I quoted and gained as much recognition. I believe the Super Bowl example says more about Super Bowl advertising than it says about sex in advertising.

[Dan Furman]

Bit late with the news, there, Dan. Geico has been selling to the general public more or less since inception, and in a more targetted fashion since probably the 1950s or before. Warren Buffet was investing in the company by the 1970s and took them over in the 1990s, if memory services me correctly. I believe they have only been advertising in the current mode for the past ten years.

Judging by comments from the company, the gecko ads are more profitable than other current ads, and despite the massive increase in advertising expenditure overall during the past decade, GEICO is still only the sixth largest auto insurer, I think. As far as I can tell, they have been a household name for the past 40 years.

that last part is very, very unlikely. Which was my point.

There's likely no way to "prove" this, but I'm very comfortable saying that ten years ago, it's very unlikely the average person knew who Geico was.

[billbenson]

Look at it differently Spider. Geico does their ads implying value and service. Allstate, who had a reputation in the past of cancel the insuree if they had an accident counters with a direct attack on Geico prices.

Geico could have responded by a direct attack on Allstate. They didn't do that. They continue to say their insurance is a bargan and they provide great customer service. Having used Geico for years and having had several accidents in that time frame, they live up to that claim.

When I see the ads for Allstate saying switch from Geico and save X% guarenteed, I see a slimebag pitchman selling lies. Who's goiing to save? The 80 y/o with a car but doesn't drive? I trust Geico in part because they take the high road. When a company such as Allstate makes a frontal attack, I say "something stinks here".

[Dan Furman]

Again that's you. You're not everyone.

Yup. This is the biggest mistake people make in discussing / advising on advertising.

[Dan Furman]

nor do i buy Dixie chicks cd's anymore.

anymore??? :p

[vangogh]

if you offend 25%, but attract 75% isnt that a smart thing to do?

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.


That's not just me, though

I don't literally mean only you, but you as in a segment of the market. See huggy's comment above.


If a company's product line is solely apples, then apples is the only reason people will buy from them.

Actually people buy because of how apples make them feel. If you have a commodity product then people probably just buy the first one they see on the shelf. Maybe that is true of apples, but for most products people buy based on an emotional response they gain from the product.

People look at things like features and specs in order to justify to themselves what's ultimately an emotional choice.


Surely that is because they are the only domain registrar and hosting company that advertises to such an extent. They could have used the silly Jed Clampett example I quoted and gained as much recognition. I believe the Super Bowl example says more about Super Bowl advertising than it says about sex in advertising.

Not every company that has advertised during the Super Bowl has done well with their commercial. The Super Bowl only guarantees a large reach. It doesn't necessarily mean your commercial automatically connects with people.

That commercial is absolutely using sex to sell. I'd say it's using sex to get attention. Most of the commercial is simply trying to gain attention so you watch. They want you to remember the brand and connect it to the marketing message. I've seen some where the marketing message is little more than a quick line and others where throughout the commercial there's a connection to purchasing a domain.

Most people are clueless if you ask them to name a domain registrar. It's not anything most people should know. Yet people want websites and in order to get one they usually need to purchase a domain. If all GoDaddy accomplishes with their commercials is to get people to connect the name GoDaddy with the concept of registering a domain then those commercials have been successful.

A Jed Clampett ad probably wasn't getting the same attention as Danica Patrick and girls removing clothing, except maybe with fans of the Beverly Hillbillies and even then maybe not.

Does it mean that they couldn't come up with a better commercial? I'm sure they could, but that's the way they went at first. It seems to have worked for them and it's now part of their image. You may not care for that image. Other people seem to like it or at least not be turned off by it. It doesn't do anything for me one way or the other.

[Spider]

...Not every company that has advertised during the Super Bowl has done well with their commercial. The Super Bowl only guarantees a large reach. It doesn't necessarily mean your commercial automatically connects with people...And do we know that Godaddy's ad "connected with people?" I see no evidence of it and have seen no business reference to increased sales, greater brand recognition, or any other metric.



...Other people seem to like it or at least not be turned off by it. It doesn't do anything for me one way or the other.I'm not for or against it, either. I just think it is not as successful an ad campaign as you guys seem to think, for the reasons stated.

[nealrm]

I think this thread itself is proof that the ad worked. The ad purpose was to increase brand awareness.

Most advertising does not work on the rational side of the brain. Instead, it work on the subconscious mind. The general public will forget about the ad in a few months, but still remember the name. That will give GoDaddy an advantage over other companies that do not have any name recognition.

[Spider]

As far as I can tell, they have been a household name for the past 40 years.that last part is very, very unlikely. Which was my point.
There's likely no way to "prove" this, but I'm very comfortable saying that ten years ago, it's very unlikely the average person knew who Geico was.I have no statistics to prove it one way or the other, so you may be quite right, Dan. However, let's apply a little logic.

If GEICO initially focussed on government employees and broadened their reach from that demographic, in the 70 years of their existence, a tremendous number of people fit into the group "government emplyees." Not only do we have federal employees, but all state government employees, from dog-catcher to governor; local and state police; school, college and university teachers, professors and staff, along with other quasi-government entities and their staff, like the postal service. Plus the military - and on this score we have, during the time in question, one world war, Korea, Vietnam, and European, Japanese and a few other overseas bases. An awful lot of people rotated through those categories in these 70 years. All would have been confronted many times by an insurance offer from GEICO.

I venture to suggest that even if you forget entirely GEICO's reach to the population at large, there was hardly a household in the country 10 years ago that had not heard of GEICO.

Now, it is entirely possible that GEICO did not reach or come to the attention of every "government employee" and it's possible many of those "government employees" did not need insurance, but I think logic tells us that quite a few of them were familiar with that name.

Also, as the sixth largest auto insurance company and considering the extent of car ownership in the US, this second line of logic seems to support that familarity, too.

[Spider]

I think this thread itself is proof that the ad worked...Four or five people talking about it on a site of 1,500 members many whom are internet techies and knew of Godaddy already? Hardly. In fact, that statistic suggests to me how poorly the ad worked, if recognition was their objective.

We need to see if the Godaddy ad is being discussed on Oprah or the New York Times or talk radio. I haven't seen any mention of it in the press and other media. Has anyone else?

[Harold Mansfield]

Of all the companies mentioned in this thread, the objective is clearly to get people to go to the website.

Go Daddy and Gieco only do business online anyway so if the commercials get people to check out the site, that's where they are counting on making the sale and where more "tech minded" people can get some specifics.

I never even considered that Go Daddy's commercials were offensive...that's how they started out..with scantily clad chicks. It's not like they have changed anything.

I agree about making things simple. Commercials and Newspapers aren't written for scholars, they are written for the average American. The average American, is not a scholar. While you and I may understand a Go Daddy commercial that uses "geek speak"...most people won't and will never even consider going to the site because they will figure it's a service that they don't need, or have a use for.

Go Daddy is trying to get the average person who doesn't know what a domain registrar is, or how easy it is to register one.
Most of my clients couldn't name another registrar other than Network Solutions, nor do many of them care.
The average person doesn't know the difference in registrars, follow ICAN rules and regs, trade and sell domains back and forth, they just wanted to register a domain for their business or project ( all they care about is the price) ..and Go Daddy is the only company talking right now.

People who don't work on the web are not going to investigate registrars. They barely got as far as to register a domain. They have regular jobs, when the tech stuff is needed, they call those of use that do it...same as I would call a plumber when I have a busted pipe.

When I look are where my clients have their domains registered, I can see the marketing that attracted them to that registrar....

Of the last 4 clients, 2 were women that had their domains registered with Go Daddy, another male, also with Go Daddy, and one guy has his with 1and1 which he obviously either was referred to, or saw their ad in a tech magazine, because that's where they market.

None of these people are Web savvy and don't know that there are hundreds of possible registrars, they either followed the advertising, or took the advice of someone else who themselves followed the advertising.

Point: The advertising works.

Just as Web people can come up with reasons not to use Go Daddy based on experience ( and personally, I don't see anything wrong with them), I'm sure a commodities trader can come up with reasons not to use Price Water-House for online trading.

Within your field of expertise, you will always have opinions about certain products that normal people aren't privy to.

Here's something: When I was selling domains and vising Domain forums frequently...most of the domain traders, especially the noobs, used Go Daddy, and Namecheap. Some people would only buy and sell with Go Daddy domains because of the ease of transfer and from what I see in domain trading and selling...it's still heavily used by Domainers.

So even the "geeks" like it and trust it.

[huggytree]

Dan....i used to like the Dixie chicks music...my wife bought the cd's for herself, but i admit i didnt mind listening to them if i was in the room.

[Dan Furman]

Four or five people talking about it on a site of 1,500 members many whom are internet techies and knew of Godaddy already? Hardly. In fact, that statistic suggests to me how poorly the ad worked, if recognition was their objective.


so for you to conclude that the ad worked, a majority of the 1,500 people here would have to start talking about it?

I'm starting to think you simply argue for argument's sake.

[Dan Furman]

Dan....i used to like the Dixie chicks music...my wife bought the cd's for herself, but i admit i didnt mind listening to them if i was in the room.

I was teasing you, Huggy.

[Dan Furman]

I venture to suggest that even if you forget entirely GEICO's reach to the population at large, there was hardly a household in the country 10 years ago that had not heard of GEICO.


I would definitely disagree with that. But we can leave that alone because there's no way to prove it.

But, and I think you can agree with me here: how many NON insurers... like I dunno, maybe kids under their parent's insurance, spouses, etc, knew of Geico? I'd venture it used to be pretty close to zero.

But now? How many emerging consumers will think Geico before anyone else because they established themselves so strongly?

Again, no "proof" in that statement, but I do think you are unreasonably down on advertising. You sound almost crotchety. :p

[rezzy]

This thread has seemed to explode since the last time I checked it, but I have seen "family men" leave godaddy because of their commercial content.

When you turn on the tv, you are surrounded by tons of commericals about ******, etc and those type of commericals are recieved without a hitch. Its weird to see people to get so worked up about the human body, but approve of ******, and "male enhancement" commericals or anyother type of commericals.

It seems a weird line has been drawn, or am I missing the boat?

BTW: I use godaddy and will contiune to use them

[Spider]

so for you to conclude that the ad worked, a majority of the 1,500 people here would have to start talking about it?
I'm starting to think you simply argue for argument's sake.That's not what I said - it is what you concluded.

[Spider]

...there was hardly a household in the country 10 years ago that had not heard of GEICO.I would definitely disagree with that. But we can leave that alone because there's no way to prove it.
But, and I think you can agree with me here: how many NON insurers... like I dunno, maybe kids under their parent's insurance, spouses, etc, knew of Geico? I'd venture it used to be pretty close to zero.
But now? How many emerging consumers will think Geico before anyone else because they established themselves so strongly?
Again, no "proof" in that statement, but I do think you are unreasonably down on advertising. You sound almost crotchety. :pI'm not sure how much children's knowledge of insurance bears on this discussion. I know when I was in my teens and did not yet have a car, I had no idea of the name of ANY insurance company. I am also pretty sure, that when I got my first car and had to consider such matters as insurance, I would have asked my father, who - if we were an average American family - would have spent some time in the military and he would surely have heard of GEICO. Did you grow up in a typical American family, Dan? And did you ask your father about insurance when you got your first car? What did he say? Had he heard of GEICO?

Remember, when you answer, we are not talking about what insurance he had or what he advised you to buy - we are discussing whether he had heard of the company.

What makes you think I am down on advertising? I think advertising is imperative for any business. I am very aware that advertising is the lifeblood of many businesses, and any business that says they can get by without advertising of some sort is fooling itself. I am also pretty sure there is good advertising and bad advertising - being primarily effective advertising or ineffective advertising. And I am equally certain that ineffective advertising is a waste of money, if not actually harmful to the company, and effective advertising is a wonderful thing to witness and not nearly as common as many think.

[Harold Mansfield]

I'm not sure how much children's knowledge of insurance bears on this discussion. I know when I was in my teens and did not yet have a car, I had no idea of the name of ANY insurance company. I am also pretty sure, that when I got my first car and had to consider such matters as insurance, I would have asked my father, who - if we were an average American family - would have spent some time in the military and he would surely have heard of GEICO. Did you grow up in a typical American family, Dan? And did you ask your father about insurance when you got your first car? What did he say? Had he heard of GEICO?

Remember, when you answer, we are not talking about what insurance he had or what he advised you to buy - we are discussing whether he had heard of the company.


I am a veteran, as was my Father, and Grandfather and I had never heard of Gieco until the commercials started.
When I got my first car insurance policy, I took suggestions from my Grandparents who lived in the same city and my Mom.

Back then the only insurance companies I had ever heard of were AAA, State Farm, Farmers, and American Family.
Then again, there was no "Online" back then either. If you needed insurance you pulled out the 40lb Yellow Pages and physically went to someones office during business hours Mon-Fri.

[Steve B]

What's wrong with the Dixie Chicks?

[Spider]

That's interesting, Harold. My first encounter with things American was when I worked in the PX in Germany (several PXs, actually) the only insurance that was available to the US troops, to my knowledge, was GEICO. This was in the early 70s.

[Dan Furman]

Did you grow up in a typical American family, Dan? And did you ask your father about insurance when you got your first car? What did he say? Had he heard of GEICO?

Remember, when you answer, we are not talking about what insurance he had or what he advised you to buy - we are discussing whether he had heard of the company.


IIRC, the only one he mentioned was allstate. That's the only one he really knew of. Maybe because back then, I seem to remember that they advertised a lot. And that's who the local insurance guy used (iirc, there wasn't a whole lot of buying direct back then.)

Geico? Personally, I never heard of it until the ad onslaught started about ten years ago.



What makes you think I am down on advertising? I think advertising is imperative for any business. I am very aware that advertising is the lifeblood of many businesses, and any business that says they can get by without advertising of some sort is fooling itself. I am also pretty sure there is good advertising and bad advertising - being primarily effective advertising or ineffective advertising. And I am equally certain that ineffective advertising is a waste of money, if not actually harmful to the company, and effective advertising is a wonderful thing to witness and not nearly as common as many think.

I think you are far too certain about what is good, what works, and what doesn't, based on little more than your own personal opinion of an ad. I dunno - your words almost seem edgy.

Just my own opinion, which really isn't worth anything.

[Harold Mansfield]

That's interesting, Harold. My first encounter with things American was when I worked in the PX in Germany (several PXs, actually) the only insurance that was available to the US troops, to my knowledge, was GEICO. This was in the early 70s.

That was also Germany. I imagine those circumstances is why there was only one insurance provider for Americans.
I'm pretty sure there were no such limitations for military personnel in America, you were free to get your own personal insurance where ever you pleased.

My Grandfather was in WWII and my Father in Korea..the only vehicles they had to worry about were military transports so they probably had no use to even hear of Gieco either.

So it's not a definite that we all would have heard of the company as you have, just by being Americans...we didn't have any cause to ever hear of it because we all had different circumstances. From what I gather, you would have had to have been an American overseas looking for car insurance to have heard of Gieco before the 90's...that surely is not "every American family".

[Spider]

Good points, Harold. I guess GEICO didn't have the 'in' to stateside PXs that they had overseas.

[Spider]

...I think you are far too certain about what is good, what works, and what doesn't, based on little more than your own personal opinion of an ad. I dunno - your words almost seem edgy...That's a bit unfair, Dan. What is a discussion, in a discission forum, but an expression of our personal opinions?

To say I am "far too certain about what is good, what works, and what doesn't," made me read all that I had written in this thread, and I cannot find a single thing I said that would lead to that comment. At every juncture, I have expressed it, not as a fact but as my opinion.

"I am inclined to not use Godaddy because of the ads - not because I find them offensive but because I find them irrelevant."

"I thought the caveman ads silly and irrelevant"

"I believe the Super Bowl example says more about Super Bowl advertising..."

"I just think it is not as successful an ad campaign as you guys seem to think"

Even where I had information from a specific source, I tempered the certainty it --

"Judging by comments from the company, the gecko ads are more profitable than other current ads"


In fact, I was mostly questioning what others were saying, not being "certain about what is good, what works, and what doesn't,"--

"do we know that Godaddy's ad "connected with people?" I see no evidence of it and have seen no business reference to increased sales, greater brand recognition, or any other metric."

"We need to see if the Godaddy ad is being discussed on Oprah or the New York Times or talk radio. I haven't seen any mention of it in the press and other media. Has anyone else?"


As I read my posts again, it seems clear to me I was challenging others' assumptions of the ads' results and effectiveness, where I could see nothing to support the conclusions being reached. If that challenging was too edgy for you, I apologize.

[Business Attorney]

For what it's worth, until the last decade or so, I had no conscious awareness of GIECO (or AFLAC, for that matter) when their massive advertising campaigns made them omnipresent.

For decades, the insurance companies I was aware of included only such companies as Allstate, State Farm and (showing my age, I fear) Prudential and Mutual of Omaha. How? Only through TV advertising. The latter sponsored Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom (http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=wildkingdom) on NBC in my "formative years." I don't know if I have ever seen another ad from Mutual of Omaha in 40 years, but I still carry the awareness garnered from watching Marlin Perkins on Sunday afternoons.

I suspect that GoDaddy does just fine with their T&A ads. The ads are not looking to attract the internet professional who will look around to find the best hosting package at the best price. They want the new user who signs up for a $1.99 domain and adds a "deluxe" ten page hosting package for $100 a year. After that, they sit back and collect the renewals every year.

For their target market, GoDaddy may be the only name they know. BlueHost? Hostgator? How is the neophyte even going to hear of those companies?

[Dan Furman]

If that challenging was too edgy for you, I apologize.

The challenging part isn't, but I find your writing tone a little edgy. No biggie - I'm probably the only one, which, like I said, is pretty worthless.

[Steve B]

Ditto what David said. We must be the same age (47).

[vangogh]

And do we know that Godaddy's ad "connected with people?" I see no evidence of it and have seen no business reference to increased sales, greater brand recognition, or any other metric.

You mean as compared to the evidence that the ads haven't connected? None of us here have evidence on either side so mentioning it as a reason not to accept only one side of the debate isn't really fair.

[Spider]

You mean as compared to the evidence that the ads haven't connected? None of us here have evidence on either side so mentioning it as a reason not to accept only one side of the debate isn't really fair.Have I said I am only accepting one side of the debate?

Without evidence, or even a subjective report from interested parties, we are all shooting in the dark - AKA, we only have our own impressions to go by - we are all offering only our own opinions.

When evidence surfaces, the discussion will change.

[vangogh]

At the time you made the comment I think you were on one side of a debate, maybe not one representative of the entirety of this thread, but one within the thread.

[Spider]

VG - and everyone interested in this topic - I like to discuss things, as I'm sure you are all aware by now. If I find a proponderance of opinion on one side of a discussion, I am likely to take the other side. Conversation is like a boat - if everyone gets on the same side, it sinks! Especially when the subject is low on facts and high on opinion.

I discovered a long time ago that I can learn nothing by agreeing with everyone. I can learn nothing in a one-sided debate. If some logical argument can be applied against a theory, I can learn more by expressing it than by going with the flow of others' opinions.

None of this means I necessarily believe the contrarian view - it only means I am still trying to learn what I do not know.

When the time comes to make a decision, or take a stand, I will consider all the facts, and if there are no facts, then all of the opinions expressed, not only my own. Until a decision is necessary, I will remain uncommitted as to opinion, and feel myself free to give voice to any point of view.

It's my coach training, you see - putting ideas forward for people to consider. I hope that explains where I'm coming from in these very interesting discussions.

[nealrm]

Spider - to summarize, you like to argue. ;)

[Spider]

Spider - to summarize, you like to argue. ;)

To summarize - I like to learn.

[Business Attorney]

Ah, the Socratic method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) at work.

[vangogh]

I like to discuss things, as I'm sure you are all aware by now.

Frederick I like to do the same and I'm glad you do too. That's one of the things that makes this place fun for me. I enjoy going back and forth with you. You offer some interesting ideas and challenge my thinking. I may not always change my mind, but even when I don't, it still gets me to think more about my opinion and possible strengthen my reasons for holding that opinion.

Please don't ever think I want you to stop debating things, especially when we're in disagreement.

Now having said that let me point to this thread and the quote I pulled above and why. At the time you and I had been going back and forth about the GoDaddy ads. You made points, I made points, other people were making points. The quote I pulled though seems to me to go against what you just said above.

Whether intended or not it comes across as a quick way to dismiss everything I said by offering up something that was true of everything said in this thread. I apologize if I missed it, but I don't anyone has offered evidence to anything in this thread, mainly because we've been talking about things where none of us could have access to evidence. Only the companies we've been talking about have that and unless they've made that evidence public none of us can get at it.

When you made the statement of seeing no evidence to one of my points it came across like you were dismissing everything I'd said in my previous post and maybe everything I'd said up to that point and implying that nothing I'd said was valid in any way. You might not have meant it that way, but that's how it came across. And I think that's unfair since there wasn't any evidence to support the things you had said or that anyone had said.

On the previous page of this thread you said


That's a bit unfair, Dan. What is a discussion, in a discission forum, but an expression of our personal opinions?

So in defense of yourself you say you're expressing your opinion, when a few pages prior you dismiss my argument by pointing out how it's opinion and there's no evidence.

It can't be both ways.

Now just to reiterate my initial thought in this post, I'm really glad you like to debate. You and I often end up arguing different sides of an issue and I enjoy that we do. I like to be challenged in my thinking and you do bring up a lot of great points and ideas in general. I hope nothing I said in this post changes that. Just wanted to explain why I pulled the quote above.

[Spider]

I think that's what happens when I debate from a position that is not as fixed as listeners suppose. If I absolutely know something, I am not likely to debate it very much. It's only when I don't know and have something to learn will I debate in order to learn - and that learning often brings a shift in my position.

Regarding the specific post you mention, VG, I wasn't expressing the opinion that the Godaddy ads were poor, ineffective ads because there was evidence they were poor and ineffective. There was no such evidence and I didn't assume any such evidence. However, the reverse was true - the consensus was that the Goddaddy ads were good and effective because there was assumed evidence that this was true.

Let's put our comments back into context:

VG: ...Prior to their first Super Bowl commercial not many people knew who they [Godaddy] were. Now they're probably the first company that comes to mind for most people when thinking about domains.

Spider: Surely that is because they are the only domain registrar and hosting company that advertises to such an extent...

VG: Not every company that has advertised during the Super Bowl has done well with their commercial. The Super Bowl only guarantees a large reach. It doesn't necessarily mean your commercial automatically connects with people.

Spider: And do we know that Godaddy's ad "connected with people?" I see no evidence of it and have seen no business reference to increased sales, greater brand recognition, or any other metric.

Do you see? The "evidence" put forth in this exchange was that Godaddy was unkown : Godaddy advertized on the Super Bowl : Godaddy became recognized : Therefore the Super Bowl ads were the cause.

The only thing that is certainly true is that Godaddy advertised at the Super Bowl, the other three steps are conjecture. It is not evidence. It is a good assumption and could serve as a theory to be tested, but it is not evidence. Therefore, until proven, it did not stand as a defeating argument against my proposition that the Godaddy ads were poor and ineffective.

It wasn't intended to be dismissive of thought, instead opposed in context.

[billbenson]

Saw a new ad a couple of times for some company selling discount vacations (I think). I've never heard of them, so I suspect they are new and trying to get noticed / brand recognition. The ad is a company meeting and when the presenter turns his back a couple sittiing with others at the table start making out.

I don't know if that is offensive or not. It certainly had no connection to the product that I could figure out.

If more and more ads are going this route, it may be that it works. Or at least the ad companies think so. Also, more things are acceptable these days than years ago. Maybe the limit was always being pushed, you are just noticing the changing of the times?