Not so funny, Part II
July 12th, 2007That Washington Post study on all those humorless old people is stirring up a firestorm of comment. Many are not amused. Tom Mann, senior vice president of advertising at Erickson Communities and publisher of The Erickson Tribune, wrote today to let me know about a new tv ad the company is testing that relies chiefly on…humor! to attract residents to its senior communities. About the Wash U study, Tom says:
I’m not buying it. Several other experts agree with me. Note today’s posting on David Wolfe’s Ageless Marketing. When we did the rough cuts for this spot, which we did at the WWII memorial in DC, seniors happily volunteered their own scenarios. In fact, we had so many retirees volunteer as they walked by that we had a tough time picking our favorite lines. Which is another interesting fact about this spot, it wrote itself.
So here’s the new Erickson ad:
Erickson is testing the ad on local tv in Chicago this evening and will then decide whether to expand to a major campaign.
Meanwhile, back at the Department of Research on Humor and Aging, colleague John McMennamin of McMennamin Consulting has rapped my knuckles for promoting an ageist view of elder humor, and criticizes Wash U’s methodology:
The two panels had very inadequate sample sizes of 40 each! The age groups were extreme, with the older group being over 65 (the median age not defined), and the younger group composed of graduate students. With these extreme age differences, there was very little, and certainly not significant, difference in comprehension. The headline should have read “The responses to humour changes very insignificantly over a 50 year period from college to retirement! . . . Those who have pre-conceived notions (a large majority of managers) will not read beyond the headline. They will just add this notion to their long list of improperly conceived biases against older workers.”
For the record: I’m not buying the results of the study either…I found it kind of absurd. I am, however, trying to mount an anti-Ferd’nand campaign.
Chuck Nyren points to interesting comment on the study at Time Goes By.
Matt Thornhill’s Boomer Project thinks Wash U has a point..
Comments about the ad on YouTube are here.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Ah, Time Goes By says: “But I still think there are few jokes I haven’t heard before.” So she is a 2/3’s empty person.
About the spot: yeah, let’s go negative and dredge up every downer associated with retirement and then magically we can make them disappear.
Blech. Hated it.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Or lets sugarcoat the situation and really hope it goes away!
Isn’t this the problem….too many people living in denial of their situation? I haven’t seen anyone bring out the harsh reality of retirement as experienced (or the lack of thereof) by many folks?
We can’t keep fooling ourselves or better yet older retirees can’t keep fooling themselves about their lifestyle. My mom lives in denial about her “good health” and how satisfied she living alone in her house of the past 58 years!(and she better be she never leaves it!). The reality however is that she falls well within in a few scenarios in that ad and is she falling apart at the seams!
I am curious to see how my mom would react to seeing this ad. I do plan to show her. I always joke that her generation is actually the “denial generation” because they all seem to be in the same sinking ship but keep the music playing as it goes rapidly down like the Titanic.
An overdue wake up call in my opinion.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I’m beginning to believe that the study is correct. I don’t find this spot remotely funny. It preys on the fear of boomers and older - and that’s about it.
The spot is a lame rip-off of a very funny video I saw on UTube with kids talking about why they wanted to be in the advertising biz when they grow up. Of course, it wasn’t a commercial - just a video. Woody Allen inspired.
If this were simply a video - not a commerical - I’d find it mildly amusing and tongue-in-cheek. But to sell a product??? I think not.
I often talk about these types of ad campaigns in my blog. Take a look at this post .
Everything these people say may or may not be true. But why you would beat your audience over the head over and over and over and over with negative fears in order to sell your product? Now I associate all these ‘fears’ with Erickson homes.
And BTW - I like the philosophy of Mr. Erickson and his business. He’s smarter than most of the home/condo and adult community builders who are simply going for the gold - the top 20% of ‘rich’ Baby Boomers. My prediction is that over the next ten to twenty years we will have a glut of super-upscale retirement housing. His communities have a more egalitarian approach.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I found the video.
You might think it’s funny. Or not. I think it’s clever and it cracked me up.
But it’s a video. For fun. It’s not selling a product.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Chuck, I’m a frequent reader of your blog and value your opinion. It’s interesting; I’ve had a lot of feedback that the spot reminds them of other spots, some have mentioned Fidelity. Others have mentioned Monster.com’s original spot (I wonder what Jeff Taylor from http://www.Eons.com would say). Neither is intentional. Our intent was to wake up the 97% of the people in our primary audience (age 65+, homeowners) that elect to stay home. This despite the fact that they, statistically speaking, have at least 3 health concerns. So the spot is talking about some scary issues but hopefully in a sarcastically, funny way. There is no prize given for slugging it out in your house. I should also note that the lines came from seniors themselves (we shot impromptu interviews on the DC Mall which we then re-shot with actors). Also, our research indicates that the spot has a higher than average recall and that it’s part of a larger campaign that should fill in some of the gaps.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Again - I just wonder about all the negatives associated with the ad - and therefore, the product.
The funny ad I was talking about can be found on UTube by clicking the link under my name. It’s actually a send up of the monster.com ad.
Take the monster.com ad, the send-up under my name, the Erikson ad - and tell me if they’re not all the same.
Your ad agency stole from both. If anything, Erickson should be doing something original (or at least something that separates it from the other spots) to brand Erickson Homes.
I like retirement living TV (except, as we’ve discussed, the name).
Nice write up about Mr. Erickson in the recent issue of GRAND Magazine. (Oh, yeah - I’m in it, too ….)
July 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I think you miss the point, Chuck. This ad is filled with smart, vibrant, healthy seniors making a point about controlling their own destiny. They’re mentioning the fears as a way of dismissing them and saying “that’s not me.” It’s a positive message, not a negative one. I think most seniors — and most people of any age — will probably see that. Not sure why you can’t.
July 18th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
No - you miss my point. Of course I ‘get’ the commercial. I don’t think it’s particularly funny or witty - but that’s just my sense of humor. The take-off on the monster.com ad I think is funny.
You toss out scores of negatives in a commercial - and eventually that’s what sticks in people’s minds. They associate negatives with the product.
As a little film with no point other than to entertain, it’s fine - although embarrassingly derivative. As a piece of marketing - it fails.
But funny or not, a brilliant piece of cinema or not - it says absolutely nothing about the product or service. NOTHING. If you take each ‘problem’ mentioned - somehow buying a home in an Erickson community will solve it? Even better, solve all of them???
Buyer beware.
Tell me about Erickson Homes. I need to know about their homes so I can ‘control my destiny’. I don’t need a lot of people spewing a bunch of tongue-in-cheek, corny, reverse platitudes.
I’ll admit this: Apparently, this commercial is aimed at the 65+ crowd - not Baby Boomers. Maybe people over 65 need a commercial like this in order to dismiss their fears and control their destiny by - I guess by moving into an Erickson Home. (Although I think they’re smarter and more emotionally secure than that - but who knows - I may be wrong.)
I know something about Erickson Homes. They have enough to offer and tell about without vague, empty, cute sayings with no real meaning.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am
If I may offer an observation:
Sarcasm is a risky advertising tactic, regardless of the age group you’re targeting. Most viewers only pay fleeting attention to ads, and an ironic or tongue-in-cheek creative concept requires a little more attention from the audience in order to be successful.
That said, a sarcastic ad can stand out and achieve better recall because it’s different and perhaps a little startling. The advertiser is wise to test the ad in one market first. You can never really know what the results will be until it the ad is on TV.
I’d also argue that it’s fine for the advertiser to not say much, or anything, about their homes. I assume the primary goal for the campaign is to raise awareness of teh Erikson Homes brand. Also, the ad does try to say something simple — we’re different. Most of the time you can’t say much more than that in a 30 second ad. The ads are successful if people remember the name Erikson Homes and look for more information when they’re in the market for a “retirement community.”