TV ADS - THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE ANNOYING

When Gibbs SR won a lottery in 1956 to promote their toothpaste on the first TV advertisement shown in the UK, no one could ever have imagined how the media would evolve over the next 44 years. I would bet that most viewers who saw those early ads can still remember the strap lines and jingles. Murray mints, too good to hurry mints. Esso means happy motoring. Go well, go Shell. The message was more important than the image.

TV ads may well be more thought-provoking and visually entertaining but does the sight of a gorilla thumping his drums along to Phil Collins vocals make you want to rush out and buy a king-size bar of Cadbury's chocolate? Possibly, if you happen to like Phil Collins and don't have an aversion to big hairy primates. Personally, give me a gorilla any day over a meercat comparing the market. Is an irritating ad more memorable if it grabs your attention even if it's for the wrong reason? You'll probably remember the domain name on an annoying and persistent ad like confused.com, but will it put you off buying the product?

If the call to action is all-important, personally the kid who wants to use the toilet at his mate Paul's house doesn't persuade me to rush out to buy whatever air freshener the ad is promoting. In fact I can't even remember the brand. Now the Sean Bean narrated O2 rubber duck advert, where the ducks make their journey down rivers, waterfalls and ice flows, ending in a fisherman's pond has me transfixed. I may not switch my mobile network provider, but if anyone can come up with one of the ducks, I might just be hooked.