Agree agree. The ads look very homemade. Esp the golf and the double-Ok ones. I think Nikon ads are more memorable as they like to use animals/insects (horse for D70, butterfly for coolpix) though both Canon and Nikon don't score very high on creativity for their ads. Like the Sony one (camera for everyone).Belle&Sebastain said:all the recent canon ads on the tv are very badly done, i din;t like any of them, the double ok shots, golf one, very low standards :thumbsd:
laugh said:Any comments about the recent canon camera adverts? Quite distasteful in my opinion...and did exactly opposite of what advertisements are supposed to do.
Yes, this is an overly used maxim of advertising, but if I remember my marketing classes, you also have to take into consideration your target audience. Since these cheapo looking ads are hawking consumer level products, mission accomplished, I guess. But if we like to consider more "sophisticated" consumers (as I am sure all my fellow distinguished ClubSnappers would like to consider ourselves... ;p ) this ad does not work - you remeber it for the wrong reasons. Makes me glad I use Nikon..... Kidding only, please don't flame.Jason H0 said:any ads that attack the attraction is a good ads.
its as good as saying famous and infamous is the same thing..Kit said:Well you people are talking about it already aren't you? To a certain extend, that's successful be it good or bad. It made people remember. That's what ads are suppose to do.
When you see an ad, you will know whether its a good or bad one. Its almost as if the advert was shot just becasue they had a budget to burn before the FY closes..shawn said:would like to know how is it distasteful? in what aspects
Yes, they have something in common. As mentioned before, people remember them and talk about them, good or bad. To some advertisers, the goal has been achieved.laugh said:its as good as saying famous and infamous is the same thing..