Start a Movement

Charmin has started their Charmin Go Nation campaign, which is a movement to get people talking about their toilet paper. As their site says, "We're calling it the Charmin Go Nation. It's made up of people who actually enjoy going to the bathroom because they have Charmin bathroom tissue."



I'm not exactly sure what to think of this campaign. While it is true that it is a part of everyone's life, I'm not sure where talking about potty humor gets too personal. "Enjoying the go" doesn't seem like something they should be uniting the country to talk about. Then again, approaching bathroom tissue from such an honest angle may help them. As I searched the site more, I started to become more comfortable with the idea. I still think it's weird, but as long as the video submissions remain acceptable for a general audience, I say enjoy the go.

It's amazing to me to watch ads from other countries. You can tell a lot about their culture from the actors and the themes in the ads. Just because it's translated into English doesn't mean the cultural aspects translate as well.

In fact, certain aspects of culture are completely incompatible from country to country, and ads from one country could say something completely different in another. It could just be that the audience doesn't understand the ad, so your message doesn't get through to them. However, it could also be very offensive. It's important to consider not only the audience you're trying to reach, but also the way their society and language work, so you can create an ad that they understand and are comfortable with.

For example, this ad has been featured as one of the best ads of 2009, but I don't really get it.

An article from today's AdWeek, "Study: Ad Spend Underpins 20% of Economic Output," by Mark Dolliver, explains that a report commissioned by The Advertising Coalition says that "ad expenditures 'account for $5.8 trillion, or 20 percent, of the $29.6 trillion in U.S. economic output' and 'support 19.8 million, or 15 percent, of the nation's 133.4 million jobs.'" The article goes on to say that "putting it another way, 'each dollar of ad spending generates, on average, $8.77 of additional sales' and sets in motion a 'ripple effect' as a company buys goods from its suppliers, which in turn purchase goods from their suppliers. Thus, each $1 million in ad outlays 'supports 69 American jobs.'"

As an advertising and economics double major, I find this really interesting. This is an example of the multiplier effect, the idea that a dollar spent ripples through the economy to have a greater effect. This shows how important advertising is to the economy, providing many jobs, and helping during the recession. Twenty percent of the U.S. economic output is substantial. That means that a lot of people who work outside of advertising depend on advertising for their job. Whatever the arguments against advertising are, the economic argument is clear.

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/esearch/e3id03412c644d4e5cdabbcbd48410e43c1

The past few months, we've been getting political advertisements almost everyday for the state senate elections that are coming up, as well as various county elections. We haven't talked much about political advertisements in my advertising classes, but they seem to follow different rules than advertisements for products. Is the role of these political advertisements merely to inform, or are they also supposed to entertain? It seems to me that the distinguishing factors between these candidates should be their positions on the issues. What I see in these ads is a focus on one or two issues concerning the other candidate which may or may not be true, but not much information on what the candidate actually supports. For example, especially for the state senate election, the flyers for one of the candidates tend to focus on a recent scandal concerning the other candidate, rather than saying what the candidate that is sending the ads would do for the state. This type of strategy seems to go more for entertainment and is less about informing the voters about the issues. I'm not sure this is fair, since the opposing candidate cannot defend himself.