#advertisingfail

oooohhh…to the advertising team for this company

It Can’t Be Just Me… 

I mean it. I really mean it.

It can’t be just me who watches the ads we’re force-fed nowadays and thinks: Who greenlit this garbage? Who seriously sits on a plush boardroom chair, watches one of these “quirky” or “relatable” monstrosities, and says, “Yes. This will convert to sales. 

This will move people.” Because let’s be honest here it doesn’t.

No soul alive watches these new ads and goes, “Wow! I must absolutely buy this toothpaste because a guy in a llama costume screamed about it for 15 seconds on YouTube.”

Advertising used to mean something.

It used to have edge, wit, a message. It wasn’t just an attempt at virality or some watered-down focus-grouped nonsense trying to tick every demographic box. It was storytelling. It was a craft. It was vision backed by principles.

Bring me back to the golden era bring me back to Chiat/Day.

The Gold Standard: Chiat/Day and Apple

When people talk about advertising that sticks, that moves, that actually sells it’s impossible not to mention Chiat/Day and their revolutionary campaigns for Apple.

Yes, I’m an Apple fanboy. Proudly so. I don’t hide it. Why should I? The "1984" ad didn’t just sell a computer it declared a rebellion. The “Think Different” campaign didn’t shout; it whispered. It respected your intelligence. It reminded you that you weren’t just a consumer, you were part of something bigger.

Fast forward to July 2024, and Apple even now can still get it right.

Take their ad “Privacy on iPhone | Flock” 19,934,460 views and counting. And it deserves every click.

It didn’t rely on a meme. It didn’t jump on a YouTube trend. It took a real issue  data privacy, surveillance, digital exploitation and explained it with clarity and style. 

It showed how we’re being tracked, watched, sliced and diced into ad data like cattle. Then, it delivered a solution, not just a scare: your iPhone keeps that private.

Simple. Clear. Effective. Respectful. Linked below

Today’s Ads: A Race to the Bottom

Now contrast that with the sludge we get today.

Every second ad is either trying too hard to be funny, or so “inclusive” it forgets what it’s actually selling. It’s like marketers have completely forgotten their job is to sell a product, not to look trendy on Twitter for six hours.

We’ve dumbed everything down. Every product is a punchline, every ad a sketch show. There’s no narrative arc. No philosophy. No taste. Just visual vomit, loud colours, fake laughter, and a QR code slapped at the end.

What Happened to Respecting the Viewer?

You know what the best ads used to do?

They treated you like you were smart. Like you had discernment. Like you were capable of understanding nuance and meaning. They didn’t scream at you they invited you in.

What we’ve got now? It’s insulting. It’s like advertising has become just another branch of the short attention span economy. 

Make it louder, faster, and more chaotic maybe someone will click. But will they buy? Will they care? Will they remember?

No. Because no one remembers what feels like a cheap joke.

The Bottom Line

It’s not just about selling anymore it’s about soul. It’s about storytelling. And in an era where every company wants your time, your data, and your money, the least they could do is earn it with dignity and intelligence.

So to all the marketing execs out there:

If you want me to care, if you want me to buy, then give me ads that are more than noise.

Bring back the craft.

Bring back the substance.

And for heaven’s sake, bring back ads that actually respect the viewer.

Advertising has the power to share messages, appeal to consumers, and most importantly for companies, sell their products. There are both good and bad types of advertising. Good advertising includes ethos, pathos, and logos to connect their product with values that align with societal values.

The Levi’s ad “We are all Workers” in Sarah Banet-Weiser’s article focuses on the rebuilding of the town Braddock, Pennsylvania with music and images that reflect a historical narrative of American pioneers building America. This ad focuses on primarily men building the town, a common American narrative that it is a man’s job to fix the economy and the nation that we live in (Banet-Weiser 91). It is as if only a man would be able to fix the economic crisis that has ruined businesses and infrastructure. In relation to logos, these ads utilize the message they are able to tell with their product. This advertisement is about much more than a pair of jeans. Banet-Weiser argues that although there are contradictions with how the ad focuses on masculinity and selective history to sell their product it is also “this kind of disconnect or contradiction that makes the ad campaigns so successful in an emotional or affective register” (101). The logos in this ad was successful because it related the brand to the current economic crisis that people were experiencing. In a sense, the Levi’s ad was used to empower men and make it their responsibility to fix the world we live, when women are just as capable. Another example of logos from a female perspective was the Always campaign “Like A Girl.” It involved interviews with women and men of all ages to enact what doing something like a girl meant. This campaign shows that women are just as capable and have the ability to perform to the highest of their abilities. This includes being able to build something, fix the economy, and change the American pioneer narrative that only men are cut out for the job.

An attempt at good advertising was Nike’s Pro Hijab product. They were creating a product that made Muslim women athletes a possibility (Bahrainwala 2). Nike created this product to enable participation from Muslim women in sports but other companies that had created Hijabs prior to Nike were part of those Muslim communities and knew the various types and coverage needed by these women. Nike was just creating their version of the Hijab to create inclusivity. This was an opportunity for Nike to show that they were a global company that could provide for athletes around the world and make a profit from it. Nike didn’t create anything new because these sport Hijabs had already existed in the Western world (12). This advertising campaign for the Pro Hijab product looks and sounds a lot like making profit off of a product that is centered around whiteness and has no connection to actual Muslim women designers or Muslim women or athletes working in Nike (13). They were a little blind to think that creating this product would automatically make it the ethically correct thing to do for a part of the athletic population. Although they didn’t use whiteness as an advertising factor visually. Some other advertisers have been blind enough to do so like Nivea, the skincare brand. Nivea created a campaign for one of their products with the specific wording “white is purity” on the cover. Although their context may have been meant to be taken differently, the literal wording implies that to be white or light skinned is the highest form one can be. This excludes a majority of the world’s population, especially when this ad was promoted to people in the Middle East.