dispatches from the new world of work

Badvertising: Quiznos (& AdAge)

On February 9, 2004, Bob Garfield, ad critic for Advertising Age, wrote a glowing review called "Dead Vermin Sell Quiznos Sandwiches, And Both Spots Break Through The Clutter As Few Ads Do," in which he raved about Quiznos' "Spongemonkeys" ad campaign. The ads, which can be viewed via this link, show some sort of disgusting animated rodents singing about Quiznos.

On December 3, 2004, Ad Age reported that Quiznos was firing the Martin Agency, the creators of the campaign.

How Garfield could have missed this one is beyond me. In his review he reminded his readers that he had criticized Quiznos' previous campaign, which featured a man sucking on a wolf's teat, as "unappetizing, self-destructive and fundamentally unhinged ... the apotheosis of irrelevance and agency self-indulgence," noting that he was proved right. So how could he think that characters that look like "animated mouse carcasses" (his words) would work any better?

The clue to his mistake is right there in the title of his review. He thought the ads would "break through the clutter." Whenever I hear this term, my advertising-cynicism antennae go up. The idea that the key to great marketing is just to shout at your customers for 30 seconds louder than your competitors are shouting is not an accurate description of how the world works. The key to your customers' love is not to act obnoxious enough that they can't help but pay attention. Customers are way too discerning and scrutinizing for that.

When I hear like terms "break through the clutter" or "capturing eyeballs" I get suspicious. It is hardly ever the answer. For every Aflac duck or "I just saved money on my car insurance by switching to Geico" there are a million—no, make that 100 million—ads that are barely noticed and, more importantly, don't motivate customers to do anything.

Steve Yastrow posted this on 12/06/04.

Comments

Those ads were so strange that they worked.

Posted by prole at December 6, 2004 2:42 AM

Thanks Steve - I agree!!! I'm always pleased to bad mouth annoying ads/companies like ditech.com!!!

Posted by Freeman at December 6, 2004 6:44 AM

Prole - why do you think they worked? Apparently Quiznos thinks they didn't. (And, sorry we edited out the obscene reference in your comment - we generally try no to talk to each other that way on this site.)

Freeman - yes, ditech.com is about as annoying as they come, especially the ads that start with sirens. They may persuade some people, but they certainly turn off many others.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 6, 2004 7:15 AM

Thanks Steve YOU ARE THE MASTER OF MARKETS - please let me know if you see a trend away from sports' celebrities as "marketing tools or reps" - given the NBA violent boys, and the latest on baseballs' / Olympics' DESIGNER steroid radicalism!!!???

How about the way giant-ego Sen. McCain markets himself on to the Sunday AM programs!!!???

Posted by Freeman at December 6, 2004 7:25 AM

The Quiznos ads reminded me so much of my cat's hairballs that I was anything but turned on to that program. I felt that their radio campaign featuring the obsessed sandwich chef was soooo much more on target to the corporate image.

What companies need is to get the confidence to fire their ad agency if they merely create a noise maker versus establishing credible, creative branding. Geico succeeded where many fail due to a good sense of comedy coupled with a dead-on targeted message that reinforced the value to the consumer - money, time, & security. (They also didn't put all their eggs in the Gecko campaign basket - imagine that a diversification of risks!) But welcome to the all too dangerous game of mascot creation... I think I'd rather go with Geico's example and err on the side of Cute versus Gross!

Posted by Pike at December 6, 2004 8:53 AM

Companies need to realize that Marketing is not always about shock value. Our society still embraces the good old fashion feel good family values and stories that create emotional reactions. Now, if you add some humor and a compelling story line......we listen and may buy the product or at least will do further investigation. The goosebump adds win every time.

Posted by nik at December 6, 2004 1:23 PM

The dead rat Quiznos ad's succeeded very well at cutting through the clutter. I will never, ever fail to recall the singing vermin whenever I see a Quiznos. I will also never, ever patronize a Quiznos again since I have a permanent association between their product and roadkill.

It is not surprising to see that Quiznos fired their ad agency but somebody at the company needed to sign off on the campaign in the first place in order for it to run.

What were they thinking?

Posted by John D at December 6, 2004 2:49 PM

I believe "cut through the clutter" ads can work well in the right context, applying the correct level of skill.

It takes a lot more skill (like driving the same mountain road at twice the speed) to make a shock-incongruous ad go net positive. For me, it's close to Angus' Second Law of Loud Rock: As you increase sound-level arithmetically, the skill needs to go up exponentially to get the same net quality.

Logitech (the mouse/pointing-device, etc. company) used to have fabulous "cut through the clutter" ads that readers of those old 300-page PC World type magazines would actually find. There actually was clutter, and the ads were creative enough to do the trick...things like a black-and-white image of a beer-bellied construction worker holding a jackhammer, and hot-pink high-heeled shoes. And it matched the point of the ad's text.

It was creative, it supported the product's USP and text, and it was in support of an excellent product.

I DO think there are cases, handled by the right level of talent and vision, where that type of ad is super.

Posted by jeff angus at December 6, 2004 5:36 PM

things are quite fucked up for humans , things are going wrong ,and we are the only ones to blame ,so why fire the agency and not the marketing manager or ad ejecutive that surely pushed te agency to breack the limits in such an ugly way. they are both respnsible ,
the entire cvilazation sufers of short memory,
we need more emotionaly created ads based on life experience to take notice that will be dead for a long time,
Nevertheless there is a tribe for each message and each company decides to which one it wants reach better.
those who shout louder today will be whispering in the dark .Use your memory and check it up.

Posted by steve at December 6, 2004 6:31 PM

Awareness is the most overrated branding characteristic. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and when companies and the ad agencies see getting noticed as their main goal they end up doing stupid things like this.

You make no money just because people are aware of your product. It must lead to something else. When it comes to marketing, celebrity is overrated.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 6, 2004 6:41 PM

SteveY:But "awareness" is no means the end itslef.. correct. Now, what happens if I were to say .."lets bring about awarness on whats wrong w/this product first".. what will the impact be on product promotion ??

Posted by /pd at December 6, 2004 7:28 PM

The ad looks like the work of Joel Veitch.
For those of you interested, there's a whole raft of his work here: http://www.rathergood.com/
I'd particularly recommend the Kittens :-)

Posted by Gary at December 7, 2004 3:09 AM

As a 25 year old young professional I have to say that they did an excellent job of creating attention. My friends and I had several conversations about the effectiveness of the ads. The conclusion: Quizno's was on my mind more prominently and thus when I thought about lunch...Quizno's was in my decision making process. I think it was very effective...sadly I had some friends attempt to duplicate the tune.

Posted by Nick at December 7, 2004 10:00 AM

Several years ago I went to an Art Director's Club meeting. The speaker was a graphic designer from NY. I was apalled at his use of client's advertising dollars to express himself and further his own image. As I left with a coworker, we both agreed that this individual had no intention of understanding the client, the client's market, and/or the market's needs. All he was interested in was expressing his creativity (even using a photo of fake dog poo which had no relevance) and winning ADDY's.

The Quizno's ads reek of the same odor. Looks like some Creative Director (which I used to be, so they're fair game) is looking to "be creative" and win awards. Problem is that true creativity has to work within parameters or it is just pure artistic expression without any lasting value beyond shock.

Posted by Dustin at December 7, 2004 12:59 PM

Dustin has it right. Great creative is only great if it helps created the right business outcomes. My art-director-trying-to-build-his-portfolio radar detector is set at a real low threshold. I can spot those guys miles away, and I makes me sick.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at December 7, 2004 9:05 PM