Comments

I would directy my ire against "Badvertising" toward BP instead of Ameritrade. While I am a big fan of British Petroleum, I find their campaign to be very offensive. It portrays regular people discussing their concerns about fossil energy and the environment. The problem is that these people are portrayed as idiots (and the women come off as particularly stupid and shallow).

Ameritrade has at least presented a cute ad that portrays people thinking about business opportunities. As a Wall St professional, I have no problems with this refreshing and positive approach.

Posted by Michael Letros at October 28, 2005 6:55 AM

Steve, from your description, the implication in the Ameritrade ad is clear. Picking it out as a bad example of investment practice isn't inaccurate, but is maybe a little pedantic.

I agree with Michael. Bad ads are the ones that offend, mislead or falsely represent a company and what it stands for. BP (which, according to the rebranded company, now means Beyond Petroleum) claims it's a new energy company. Maybe Michael, you can help us out and tell us how much of the company's revenues go in to developing alternative and clean energy sources and R&D, compared to how much goes in to telling the public it's a new energy company. I'd be interested to know.

Posted by Matt at October 28, 2005 7:25 AM

How about BP's all time high profits?..Is this due to alternative energy?

Posted by Alex at October 28, 2005 7:48 AM

that was my thought watching the ad as well. i guess we would also agree that good investing practices make for boring tv. i'm sure an ad agency came up with the idea, and it's a little surprising that AMTD let it run. i think it is good evidence that AMTD is out of touch with what investors want. smartmoney recently named fidelity, etrade and schwab to be the three best online brokerages (based on quality of offering), so it doesn't suprise me that AMTD, an also-ran on features, is an also-ran on it's marketing message.

http://ddo.typepad.com

Posted by Ed at October 28, 2005 8:21 AM

Good point, Alex. Is 'badvertising' really about saying one thing, doing another? Or, making claims that can't be substantiated? I suppose it depends on your interpretation of 'bad'. I guess Steve thinks of 'bad' in terms of poor concept or quality, whereas I can't help thinking of 'bad' as immoral or unethical.

Posted by matt at October 28, 2005 8:37 AM

I think the fact that you believe it was designed BY an amateur investor tells the tale: it was designed FOR the amateur investor (a class to which I belong). Ameritrade's advertising firm keyed into how amateur investors think, and acted accordingly. Goodvertising (if it works). Ameritrade isn't trying to attract the professional investor, they go to Goldman.

And, by the way, I know that story. I bought calls on Gamestop (GME) before the last quarterly earnings because my son drags me into every Gamestop we pass. I didn't think the pros spent much time in video game stores . . . and I had never seen one empty, despite the $49.95 price tag on a new game.

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at October 28, 2005 9:06 AM

The ad is an example of good advertising. How many Internet bubble stocks would have been in your portfolio if you a) verified the company had a product and b) verified that a lot of people were buying it? As an amateur investor, this is one of the few stock buying criteria that I can verify for myself.

This ad could have been a great ad if it had shown the father using Ameritrade research tools(if they offer any) to check out the company a little further before jumping in to buy shares.

I'll go with Steve's definition of "Badvertsing" based on his article. Companies that mislead through ad's are just plain criminal.

Posted by Charles Green at October 28, 2005 10:19 AM

The ad succeeds in showing that making a trade can be that quick and simple. But sends a bad message to experienced investors. Well, they're not the target market, so it comes down as badvertising for that group.

On the other hand you could say that Ameritrade is not in the business of giving investment advice, but to give access to quick and convenient trades (to inexperienced investors) There are certainly better research tools out there.

Posted by John at October 28, 2005 11:14 AM

Spot Opportunity. Seize Opportunity. Is Ameritrade's catch phrase. I assume that the Ad is depicting this branding mantra.. I have to agree that there would have been better depictions of 'buy what you know' in the name of responsible advertising.

Posted by Rachel Gulen at October 28, 2005 12:17 PM

Badvertising can be bad in many ways! Unclear, waste of money, non-motivating, misleading ... gee, that's just a start!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at October 28, 2005 12:22 PM

I might play devil's advocate here and state that mass media advertising is not about laying the groundwork about your company as much as it is about getting your brand some attention.

The fact is, the serious investor is not the targeted audience for the ad and AMTD understands that. It's simply to capture people's attention that may have something in common with the personalities in the advertisement. Perhaps it's a demographic with disposable income, children in the teens, and little investment experience that they are after. It could be a portion of the market yet explored by the other 'big 3'.

Mass media can only be used to grab attention. Customer service and a strong product is what will keep them.

I agree on BP... if this is 'badvertising', their campaign is 'circumarketing'... trying to say you care while you post record profits while the economy and ecology are suffering.

Posted by Doug Karr at October 28, 2005 12:59 PM

I thought it was a great commercial if you look at it with the Warren Buffet "let's buy value" thought process instead of the "buy hot stock X on the way up" thought process.

Posted by jb at October 28, 2005 1:25 PM

Seems like a good ad to me.

Target market: Amateur investors.
Message: Seize an opportunity.
Implied Messages: Parents who are out of the "what's hot" loop can look to their in-house trendsetters for ideas. Easy to take advantage through Ameritrade immediately while sitting with your laptop on the couch. Buy the stock right then and their (i.e. simple and fast).

As for the wisdom of buying jeans that everyone already has? Charles Schwab said to by stock in the products that you use. I'm guessing that you must have a better stock strategy Steve. Congratulations.

Posted by Paul Davidson at October 28, 2005 2:26 PM

On BP and Badvertising: How exactly will BP pursue alternative fuel and cleaner energy if not with profits? With losses? Just curious. . .

Reminds me of a girl in a micro-econ class I took in college. Immediately after the professor spent 5 minutes in a foaming rant against trickle-down economics, she looked up, and in all sincerity, asked: "Does trickle-up economics work better?"

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at October 28, 2005 7:58 PM

I haven´t seen the ad but I can imagine it from your description. The ad plays with the popular idea of the small investor that operates from his laptop. I remember a couple of years ago I was asked several times about investing in shares when I was going out with my friends on weekends. I thought people were absolutely crazy. What is the best investment now, Felix? they told me. As if there was one good investment for everybody.

I think the ad perhaps reflects that kind of "popular finance" atmosohere. And probably the designer, if he is not an specialist on finance, also thinks that way. But I don´t think it would be necessary to think like that, sometimes you just have to listen to what people talk about or to what they tell you, in this case about shares.

The other question is if the ad achieves the goal of transmitting confidence or what the designer would call "brand power". That´s something different. I think it wouldn´t make a "believer in the brand" out of me with that ad.

Posted by Felix Gerena at October 29, 2005 6:07 AM

I think you miss the point: Watch the kids, be observant, have your antenna up and you might be able to make some good investments.

By the way, it works well for observing tech. trends: Instant messaging, ringtones, text messaging, social networking, and on and on.

Posted by Ken Leebow at October 29, 2005 7:30 AM

Bottom line is that it's talking to who they want to talk to. It's much like the ad years ago with the young girl taking care of a great horned owl or Screech (I believe, don't quote me on the specicies). The target audience doesn't realize the talons of this owl would tear the kid's eyes out. They just say "oh, how cute, a fuzzy little owl and a cute little girl." Only people in the know (in this case, experienced birders) raged when they saw this.

You can also cite the similar example that the resounding "screech" we hear of a Bald Eagle in car commercials is not actually an Eagle at all but a Red-tailed hawk. An Eagle's "peep" would not provide the same drama or inspiration. Are the car companies' lying to their viewers? Sure. Do the viewers know or care? No. They want and need to feel warm, fuzzy and patriotic about their purchase. Realizing the peep of an Eagle wouldn't do it for them, the agency realized that and took liberties (patriotic pun not intended).

Right or wrong, ad people have the goal of making their client's product or service stand out and reach the target audience in a matter of seconds. Thinking to the outcome of those poor people who don't get to make the purchase at the special price or get in on the deal at the lowest price is not their concern. Unfortunately, we're expecting way too much of 30 to 60 seconds of advertising as being so morally responsible for that outcome. Certainly advertising's role in branding a company as socially or morally responsible should be an ultimate goal, but it does not always work that way.

Oh, yes and BTW I am a birder...just a hobbyist though. My NJ Audubon friends would not be happy with me misquoting the species above. Sorry!

Posted by Caryl Felicetta at October 29, 2005 8:15 AM

Isn't this the core of the Peter Lynch investing method? To find companies that you can understand, based on what you see happening?

Posted by Adam S at October 29, 2005 10:29 AM

I have never seen the ad but based on your description of it I would have to say that while it does seem very contrived, it does speak directly to the demographic they are attempting to engage. My main concern is that this commercial puts the idea in investors heads that your teenage daughter knows more about market trends than a seasoned financial advisor or professional trend-spotter.

Posted by Daniel Schutzsmith at October 29, 2005 11:02 AM

Just passing through, cool blog by the way.

Posted by HumanityCritic at October 29, 2005 3:26 PM

I still don't like the ad ... but let's say that it does speak to the right target market and is a clear message for the amateur investor. Is it still a good ad? Does it sell Ameritrade or does it sell the concept of investing in this way? Has Ameritrade essentially done a good job of advertising for its competitors?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at October 30, 2005 8:23 AM

Investment advice by Ameritrade, AmeriPrise, Allstate, Bank of America, et al is a mixed bag at best - the true investor must know markets and finance - paying a big commission to attach investments to a brand is for the foolish - fool me once your fault - fool me twice my fault.

Posted by Sean at October 30, 2005 9:32 AM

Like many others, I don't feel they are suggesting an investment strategy, but looking for people who might identify with the guy in the ad to get a "conversation started". Everyone doesn't identify with a dark-suited, Wall Street-type spouting investment-speak.

Similar to Charles Schwab's ads of late....animated at that.

Hey, Caryl, we needed you hawking (pun intended!) the American TV folks during their golf telecasts in recent years. Birders called them out for adding bird chirps during the telecasts to add a nature bent. Problem was they added non-native species. A bit of penguins in the desert for the learned. We non-birders never knew the difference.

Posted by Jeff at October 30, 2005 10:25 AM

Just a note..I can't verify if this is a legitmate website or not..but it is an interesting concept.

Posted by Alex at October 30, 2005 9:42 PM

Thanks for the financial info, Michael.

Posted by Matt at October 31, 2005 2:50 AM

Even if this is an advert designed by an amateur investor, surely someone in Ameritrade has seen it, liked it, signed it off and is happy with it? Maybe it tells us more about Ameritrade's marketing, business and brand values than they really intended!

Posted by Mark JF at October 31, 2005 3:48 AM

"Does it sell Ameritrade or does it sell the concept of investing in this way? Has Ameritrade essentially done a good job of advertising for its competitors?"

Excellent point Steve, so it tells us about this investing method. So what? Why should we choose Ameritrade over another provider to invest this way. Because it's a cute ad? As you suggest, the ad fails in that it offers no unique advantage that this particular company can offer over another.

Posted by frederick kambo at October 31, 2005 4:28 AM pharmacy viagra

The better ad would be if your daughter was undeniably cool and you knew that. And when she bought a pair of jeans from a company that nobody wore jeans from: BUY! BUY! BUY!

Posted by Brent Weaver at October 31, 2005 12:59 PM

I fail to see the difference between this ad and 80% of the other ads out today. Eliciting an emotional response (a smile in this case) almost always comes before factually describing a company's products or services. In this case, Ameritrade is selling an experience, not a service. They just fail to mention that the user's experience down the road might not be what he or she expected

Posted by James at October 31, 2005 1:26 PM

The simplicity of using online brokerage by the average person is clearly communicated in this message. If dad turned to his online research repository and started doing fundamental analysis on the jeans company it would show the complexities of investing and shift the attention of the viewer away from the simplicities of online brokerage services.

On a side note, I think they should have put a funny spin on its ending and had the father frantically identifying all the hottest brands in his daughter's closet.

Posted by Dau at November 1, 2005 8:31 AM

I haven't seen the ad, however, the original idea sounded ok to me. However, Brent Weaver and Dau, I loved your ideas!

Posted by Anindo at November 2, 2005 7:51 AM

It could be the start of a whole series of ads. How about next month when his daughter comes in wearing a different brand and announces the original brand is just-oh-so-yesterday. Cue frantic on-line selling scene...

Or how about Dad identifies an under-performing brand, buys low and then persaudes his daughter and her friends to go out and buy their clothing?

Posted by Mark JF at November 2, 2005 9:39 AM

where to buy viagra in australia without prescription I have more of a problem with the low rider jeans and lip gloss that this girl is wearing in the commercial than anything else.

Posted by m at November 16, 2005 8:47 AM