Army turns to Frankenstein for new slogan

[shemp]

Army launching 'Army Strong' ad campaign (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/09/army_launching_army_strong_ad_campaign/)

WASHINGTON --In its battle to win the hearts and minds of recruiting-age Americans, the Army is replacing its main ad slogan -- "An Army of One" -- with one it hopes will pack more punch: "Army Strong."

The new approach, the fruit of a $200 million-a-year contract with a major advertising agency, was announced Monday by Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey. He said "Army Strong" will be the centerpiece of a multimedia ad campaign to be launched Nov. 9, timed to coincide with Veterans Day weekend.

Army officials acknowledge that recruiting during wartime is difficult, particularly with the Iraq war grinding on far longer than Bush administration officials expected and U.S. troops dying in battle almost every day.

Aaaaargh! Fire Bad! Army Strong!

But I for one am glad that they didn't overspend:

"Army Strong" was developed by McCann Worldgroup, the communications firm the Army hired last December after struggling through a disappointing recruiting year. The overall five-year contract with McCann Worldgroup is valued at $1 billion, with the first two years guaranteed at $200 million annually.

They could have had this slogan for free: "Win a Free Trip to Iraq!"

[tkingdoll]

"Army Strong" is a superb slogan.

I'd be interested to see what the $1billion got them, and whether that was just McCann's fees or if that included that actual adspend as well.

[Upchurch]

Army launching 'Army Strong' ad campaign (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/09/army_launching_army_strong_ad_campaign/)



Aaaaargh! Fire Bad! Army Strong!
Seems more like a Hulk approach to me.

Army Strong! Army SMASH!

eta: Heck, they even wear green.

[MWare]

I couldn't find any other sources for this. This includes searching the Army.mil news search feature. I did find something for "Keeping the Army Strong" though, which makes a bit more grammatical sense.

[Cylinder]

You guys ever heard of adverbs?

[ImaginalDisc]

This is easily the funniest thing I've ever read on the forum. It's an even dumber slogan than "Army of One!"

"Isn't an 'army of one' a terrorist?"

"Shut up, kid."

[senorpogo]

This is easily the funniest thing I've ever read on the forum.

Agreed.

[Beerina]

"Army Strong" is a superb slogan.

I'd be interested to see what the $1billion got them, and whether that was just McCann's fees or if that included that actual adspend as well.

So what in god's name is an advertising agency doing that's the equivalent of designing and building an entire car line from the ground up, or creating a major new computer chip fabrication plant?

A BILLION DOLLARS? A BILLION DOLLARS?!?!?!?

[Cylinder]

So what in god's name is an advertising agency doing that's the equivalent of designing and building an entire car line from the ground up, or creating a major new computer chip fabrication plant?

A BILLION DOLLARS? A BILLION DOLLARS?!?!?!?

That is probably more than one FY of advertising costs built in including print materials and electronic media.

[MWare]

I'm still not able to find additional sources for this. I also searched the advertising company's web site which doesn't even acknowledge the Army as a client. Even if it is true, shouldn't the topic be described as "Army turns to Tarzan for new slogan" or perhaps even Tonto. I thought Frankenstein only grunted. I dunno, my Shelley is pretty rusty.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm still not able to find additional sources for this. I also searched the advertising company's web site which doesn't even acknowledge the Army as a client. Even if it is true, shouldn't the topic be described as "Army turns to Tarzan for new slogan" or perhaps even Tonto. I thought Frankenstein only grunted. I dunno, my Shelley is pretty rusty.

Psst, I'm sure you meant Frankenstien's monster.

[Sally]

Washington post ran the same AP story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900453.html

Would expect to see it run a lot more places over the next few days. The advertising firm and the army certainly will have responses to the article.

[Upchurch]

Psst, I'm sure you meant Frankenstien's monster.
What? Doctors can't grunt?

[marksman]

I thought Frankenstein only grunted. I dunno, my Shelley is pretty rusty.

http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/teach.gif
"Frankenstein" is the name of the scientist. "Frankenstein's Monster" is the name of the monster he created. Dr. Frankenstein was well-versed and educated. He would not have said "Army Strong".

Frankenstein's Monster, in Shelley's work is remarkably erudite. Many of the chapters are written from the first-person perspective of the creature. Here's a sample:
"That is also my victim!" he exclaimed: "in his murder my crimes are consummated; the miserable series of my being is wound to its close! Oh, Frankenstein! generous and self-devoted being! what does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me? I, who irretrievably destroyed thee by destroying all thou lovedst. Alas! he is cold, he cannot answer me."
Here (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) you can read the book for yourself.

The army could do worse than to seek out Frankenstein or his creation for some clever wordplay.

[RandFan]

The campaign needs to be simple like the Milk commercials.

"Got Killer Firepower?", "Got Death?" Or how about a take off of the old GE commercials. "The Army, we bring good things to death"

[ImaginalDisc]

What? Doctors can't grunt?

"I thought Frankenstein only grunted. "

If so, Dr. Frankenstein grunted eloquently to that ship's captain.

[tkingdoll]

Sigh. It's not "the army is strong" with words missing, but "I am army strong" - as strong as an Army. Or "we are army strong", or "you can be army strong".

It's a shorter way of saying "as strong as an army" - Army Strong.

"Are you strong?" "Yes, I'm Army strong!"

In other words, they are saying that the individual takes on the strength of an entire army and has the strength of an entire army behind him.

It's very good.

PS, in your interpretation, Tarzan makes more sense than Frankenstein's Monster.

[ImaginalDisc]

Sigh. It's not "the army is strong" with words missing, but "I am army strong" - as strong as an Army. Or "we are army strong", or "you can be army strong".

It's a shorter way of saying "as strong as an army" - Army Strong.

In other words, they are saying that the individual takes on the strength of an entire army and has the strength of an entire army behind him.

It's very good.

It's really dumb. Watch.

ImaginalDisc Strong!

[Cylinder]

It's very good.

Yup.

[Cylinder]

ImaginalDisc Strong!

Are you certain that it's not the context that fails in your example?

[ImaginalDisc]

Are you certain that it's not the context that fails in your example?

Context for girly men. You make ImaginalDisc angry. ImaginalDisc Strong!

[MWare]

http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/teach.gif
"Frankenstein" is the name of the scientist. "Frankenstein's Monster" is the name of the monster he created. Dr. Frankenstein was well-versed and educated. He would not have said "Army Strong".

Frankenstein's Monster, in Shelley's work is remarkably erudite. Many of the chapters are written from the first-person perspective of the creature. Here's a sample:
"That is also my victim!" he exclaimed: "in his murder my crimes are consummated; the miserable series of my being is wound to its close! Oh, Frankenstein! generous and self-devoted being! what does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me? I, who irretrievably destroyed thee by destroying all thou lovedst. Alas! he is cold, he cannot answer me."
Here (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) you can read the book for yourself.

The army could do worse than to seek out Frankenstein or his creation for some clever wordplay.

Corrected I stand.

[slingblade]

It wants a hyphen, that's all.

Army-strong, springtime-fresh, heart-healthy, like that.

"I'm not just strong, I'm Army-strong!" Etc.

[senorpogo]

Sigh. It's not "the army is strong" with words missing, but "I am army strong" - as strong as an Army. Or "we are army strong", or "you can be army strong".

It's a shorter way of saying "as strong as an army" - Army Strong.

"Are you strong?" "Yes, I'm Army strong!"

In other words, they are saying that the individual takes on the strength of an entire army and has the strength of an entire army behind him.

It's very good.

Yes, it's reminiscent of the "Built Ford tough" slogan which sometimes is shortened to simply "Ford tough". I still think it's kind of stupid, but then again I'm probably not the type of person they're targeting with the ad at.

[tkingdoll]

It wants a hyphen, that's all.

Army-strong, springtime-fresh, heart-healthy, like that.

"I'm not just strong, I'm Army-strong!" Etc.

I can guarantee they would have gone through the hyphen issue, but a) punctuation isn't trendy right now and the hyphen might actually alienate their target market, and b) it keeps it vague enough so anyone can read it how they like. Ambiguity is King when you're trying to make government-sponsored death appealing. I'd have made the same decision, even though it irks me.

Hyphens are the most under-used bit of punctuation since the semi-colon.

[ImaginalDisc]

I can guarantee they would have gone through the hyphen issue, but a) punctuation isn't trendy right now and the hyphen might actually alienate their target market, and b) it keeps it vague enough so anyone can read it how they like. Ambiguity is King when you're trying to make government-sponsored death appealing. I'd have made the same decision, even though it irks me.

Hyphens are the most under-used bit of punctuation since the semi-colon.

Marketing's a tough field, full of difficult choices, but you seem to be well aware of the best course to take.

Teek Strong!

[tkingdoll]

Marketing's a tough field, full of difficult choices, but you seem to be well aware of the best course to take.

Teek Strong!

I like this. You may continue to refer to, and think of, me as strong. And not just strong, but Teek Strong. Yes.

[slingblade]

I can guarantee they would have gone through the hyphen issue, but a) punctuation isn't trendy right now and the hyphen might actually alienate their target market, and b) it keeps it vague enough so anyone can read it how they like. Ambiguity is King when you're trying to make government-sponsored death appealing. I'd have made the same decision, even though it irks me.

Hyphens are the most under-used bit of punctuation since the semi-colon.

All very true. IBTYG. :cool:

[Renfield]

Seems more like a Hulk approach to me.

Army Strong! Army SMASH!

eta: Heck, they even wear green.

Makes sense. Bush sounds like a comic book a lot of the time too.

"We will defeat the evil doers!"

[webfusion]

It will be commonly misheard as "armstrong"

My only image of the Frank-N-Stein monster is Peter Boyle.
Tap Dancing. With tails and a top hat and a cane.

Two, three...

[slingblade]

I like this slogan better, though it has nothing to do with the thread.

....but who knows when it might? :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :eye-poppi

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/5604452ac6a703f13.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1840)

(Glarkwear at TWoP.)

[Just thinking]

Aaaaargh! Fire Bad!

No ... No, fire is good. Fire is our friend, see?

Now, give me the end of your cigar ...

http://eric.b.olsen.tripod.com/images/yfrank1.jpg

[Soapy Sam]

Sigh. It's not "the army is strong" with words missing, but "I am army strong" - as strong as an Army. Or "we are army strong", or "you can be army strong".

It's a shorter way of saying "as strong as an army" - Army Strong.

"Are you strong?" "Yes, I'm Army strong!"

In other words, they are saying that the individual takes on the strength of an entire army and has the strength of an entire army behind him.

It's very good.

PS, in your interpretation, Tarzan makes more sense than Frankenstein's Monster.

Teek- If you need to explain it, how good can it be?

Last time I looked, "army" was a noun, not an adjective.

[fuelair]

This is easily the funniest thing I've ever read on the forum. It's an even dumber slogan than "Army of One!"

"Isn't an 'army of one' a terrorist?"

"Shut up, kid."

Not actually, A terrorist is a piece'o'krap with weapons. (way nicer than I mean it).

[steverino]

The great state of Washington spent $440,000 to come up with "SAY WA" as its new state slogan! My kid could have thought of that and I don't even have kids.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/42395.htm

[Nancarrow]

It wants a hyphen, that's all.

Are you mad, that would have cost another $50 million! :jaw-dropp

Last time I looked, "army" was a noun, not an adjective.

Well nouns can be adjectives too ("orange peel"). But in this case the noun is taking the role of an adverb.

[Pyrrho]

Don't take the simplicity as being ineffective or substandard.
The slogan is only part of the branding package and should be considered in context with the other text and visuals that will support the brand.

[shemp]

I'm still not able to find additional sources for this. I also searched the advertising company's web site which doesn't even acknowledge the Army as a client. Even if it is true, shouldn't the topic be described as "Army turns to Tarzan for new slogan" or perhaps even Tonto. I thought Frankenstein only grunted. I dunno, my Shelley is pretty rusty.

I went with Frankenstein because Halloween is nearing.

[shemp]

Psst, I'm sure you meant Frankenstien's monster.

Yeah, whatever, shuddup.

[Luke T.]

Washington post ran the same AP story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100900453.html



Closer to home for me, from that article:

The Navy has relied on "Accelerate Your Life" since January 2001

And here I thought it couldn't get worse than "It's Not Just A Job, It's An Adventure".

:( :( :(

Accelerate Your Life.

I am seeing Slim Pickins riding a nuclear bomb to ground zero.

Yeeeeee-haaawwww! Accelerate your life!


Accelerate Your Life. Age faster in the Navy. Be an old man by 30.

[Luke T.]

A billion dollar five year ad campaign. That sounds like a lot, but I don't have anything to compare that to.

What does Ford spend? Or some other large employer?

How much would Ford have to spend to hire employees if there was a chance of getting shot?

Oh, wait. They are in Detroit...

[Dark Jaguar]

Sigh. It's not "the army is strong" with words missing, but "I am army strong" - as strong as an Army. Or "we are army strong", or "you can be army strong".

It's a shorter way of saying "as strong as an army" - Army Strong.

"Are you strong?" "Yes, I'm Army strong!"

In other words, they are saying that the individual takes on the strength of an entire army and has the strength of an entire army behind him.

It's very good.

Don't take the simplicity as being ineffective or substandard.
The slogan is only part of the branding package and should be considered in context with the other text and visuals that will support the brand.

I sure do hate marketting.

[Cylinder]

What does Ford spend?

$2.3 billion USD per annum, making it the 7th-ranked US corporation by advertising expenditure.

Or some other large employer?

The top 5 US advertisers are:

Proctor & Gamble - $4.6B
General Motors - $4.3B
Time-Warner - $3.5B
Verizon Communications - $2.5B
AT&T - $2.5B

The US Government is the 27th-ranked advertiser, spending $1.27B annually. This might seem a bit misleading at first, because the $1B includes things like T-Shirts, glossies, video games, development costs, etc that is not factored in the Ad Age rankings (http://adage.com/images/random/LNA2006.pdf). Those include ad expenditures for traditional print and electronic media.

[tkingdoll]

I sure do hate marketting.

And I sure do hate whatever it is you do for a living. :rolleyes:

Don't insult people's professions, it's rude.

[Cylinder]

it keeps it vague enough so anyone can read it how they like.

I never liked the Army of One slogan (if that's the right term) because it contradicts Army Core Values. That's just me, though.

I'm betting that the pitch stressed the value of Army Strong to the mind of parents to remind them of the number one recruiting point for parents - that you send off a boy or girl and get back a man or woman. Putting those two words together, IMHO, does it all - appeals to teen-aged macho, appeals to parents desire for personal growth and probably works to assuage parental fears about personal risk.

As you point out, it's also flexible enough to cater to all the different specific appeals. You show a kid in a classroom and you get strong personal growth. You show a kid on the job and you get strong professional competence...

[RandFan]

I never liked the Army of One slogan (if that's the right term) because it contradicts Army Core Values. That's just me, though. Whenever I saw that commercial I couldn't help but think of all basic training movies I've watched over the years. Oh, I understand that Hollywood isn't to be relied on when it comes to accuracy but I'm willing to bet that any notions of individuality are contrary to a cohesive fighting unit.

"Drill Sargent, this recruit would like to use the latrine?"

[Dark Jaguar]

And I sure do hate whatever it is you do for a living. :rolleyes:

Don't insult people's professions, it's rude.

Had no idea. I'd never make fun of a marketting type to their face, only behing their backs, as a group, unceasingly. :D

But seriously, I have to wonder about stuff like "Xtreme" and, well, this piece of garbage. Sounds pretty stupid if you ask me, and considering I'm who they are trying to reach, I'd think that's the opinion that matters. Who does this stuff even work on anyway? Then there's those advertisements where I just get the impression that the entire idea is to say a whole lot of nothing at all, like "the less they know about this product, or the entire market this product is in, the better, let's sell them poetry instead".

But really, I have no idea if you are behind these or the advertising that actually seems to provide a service to the consumers. I've seen advertising that is merely informative without being insulting, and that's the kind I like. That is, the kind that says "this product exists, and here are the facts about it" as opposed to "this product is love and dreams hewn from raw awesome and you can't live without it, also we sure do like catchy sayings". Personally I'm of the opinion that a product that can't be sold on it's own merits, once widely spread, isn't worth it. In the case of the army, I'm of the opinion that a catchy slogun and tossing a billion dollars in ads isn't going to do anything since everyone pretty much already knows what the army is anyway.

Don't take this as an attack against you, but yes, I DO have a problem with, at the very least, a large part of what your profession seems to be. Your profession isn't alone in having a gross problem with bad image due to very aweful examples. Psychiatry for example... Well there I'm at least familiar enough with "the good ones" to know the difference.

[AmateurScientist]

An Army of One was beyond stupid and an oxymoron to boot.

Army Strong is almost as stupid. Anyway, it's terrible.

The slogan from the 70s was great. "Be all you can be."

In the late 80s or early 90s, the army had a terrific TV ad campaign that featured soldiers rappeling and doing helicopter assaults and crossing rope bridges. Then it should them sitting around in the field drinking hot coffee. The voiceover said, "We do more before 9 a.m. than most people do all day."

That was a good campaign. Army Strong is stupid.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Whenever I saw that commercial I couldn't help but think of all basic training movies I've watched over the years. Oh, I understand that Hollywood isn't to be relied on when it comes to accuracy but I'm willing to bet that any notions of individuality are contrary to a cohesive fighting unit.

"Drill Sargent, this recruit would like to use the latrine?"

Absolutely. Army missions are about teamwork. They are never individual efforts. An army of one is incredibly stupid. OK, unless you're Audey Murphy.

AS

[RandFan]

I've seen advertising that is merely informative without being insulting, and that's the kind I like. That is, the kind that says "this product exists, and here are the facts about it" as opposed to "this product is love and dreams hewn from raw awesome and you can't live without it, also we sure do like catchy sayings". Personally I'm of the opinion that a product that can't be sold on it's own merits, once widely spread, isn't worth it. In the case of the army, I'm of the opinion that a catchy slogun and tossing a billion dollars in ads isn't going to do anything since everyone pretty much already knows what the army is anyway.

Don't take this as an attack against you, but yes, I DO have a problem with, at the very least, a large part of what your profession seems to be. Your profession isn't alone in having a gross problem with bad image due to very aweful examples. Psychiatry for example... Well there I'm at least familiar enough with "the good ones" to know the difference. When I was a magazine production manager I was intimately involved with advertising. We regularly tracked what worked and what didn't.

Ad agencies and their customers are looking for campaigns that work. They don't care about anything else. I find commercials often offensive and insulting. However I realize that this isn't the fault of the ad agencies or their clients it is the fault of the market. If purple with green polka dots sells better for a given ad spot then you will see purple with green polka dots.

It has to a large degree become part science, part art and part calculated gamble. Every last drop of demographic data is tracked and analyzed to the Nth degree and the spot that is believed to produce the most return for the buck is the one that is decided on.

That's it.

[AmateurScientist]

Ad agencies and their customers are looking for campaigns that work. They don't care about anything else. I find commercials often offensive and insulting. However I realize that this isn't the fault of the ad agencies or their clients it is the fault of the market. If purple with green polka dots sells better for a given ad spot then you will see purple with green polka dots.

It has to a large degree become part science, part art and part calculated gamble. Every last drop of demographic data is tracked and analyzed to the Nth degree and the spot that is believed to produce the most return for the buck is the one that is decided on.

That's it.

Who the hell determined, and how the hell did they do it, that "Head On, apply directly to forehead. Head One, apply directly to forehead. Head On, apply directly to forehead" was something that would sell?

AS

[Cylinder]

Who the hell determined, and how the hell did they do it, that "Head On, apply directly to forehead. Head One, apply directly to forehead. Head On, apply directly to forehead" was something that would sell?

AS


Wow. You just named the brand and its use three times from memory. I wonder how that happened.

[AmateurScientist]

Wow. You just named the brand and its use three times from memory. I wonder how that happened.

I remember screaming local car dealership commercials too, but I avoid those at all costs. I feel safe in declaring that I will never ever purchase the insipid product Head On. Never.

AS

[shemp]

There's more news on this. They've hired Hans and Franz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_and_Franz) for a series of ads. "I am Hans." "And I am Franz." "We are here to pump you up!" "Hear me now and believe me later... when we are done with you girlie men, you will be Army Strong!"

[tkingdoll]

Had no idea. I'd never make fun of a marketting type to their face, only behing their backs, as a group, unceasingly. :D

But seriously, I have to wonder about stuff like "Xtreme" and, well, this piece of garbage. Sounds pretty stupid if you ask me, and considering I'm who they are trying to reach, I'd think that's the opinion that matters. Who does this stuff even work on anyway? Then there's those advertisements where I just get the impression that the entire idea is to say a whole lot of nothing at all, like "the less they know about this product, or the entire market this product is in, the better, let's sell them poetry instead".

But really, I have no idea if you are behind these or the advertising that actually seems to provide a service to the consumers. I've seen advertising that is merely informative without being insulting, and that's the kind I like. That is, the kind that says "this product exists, and here are the facts about it" as opposed to "this product is love and dreams hewn from raw awesome and you can't live without it, also we sure do like catchy sayings". Personally I'm of the opinion that a product that can't be sold on it's own merits, once widely spread, isn't worth it. In the case of the army, I'm of the opinion that a catchy slogun and tossing a billion dollars in ads isn't going to do anything since everyone pretty much already knows what the army is anyway.

Don't take this as an attack against you, but yes, I DO have a problem with, at the very least, a large part of what your profession seems to be. Your profession isn't alone in having a gross problem with bad image due to very aweful examples. Psychiatry for example... Well there I'm at least familiar enough with "the good ones" to know the difference.

If you don't understand the advert, it's not aimed at you. If you don't like it, it might be aimed at you and not very good, or it might not be aimed at you and be great.

And some marketing fails, yes, so in that sense it can be deemed 'bad' or even 'rubbish', but it's extremely rare for a campaign to go out that hasn't been thoroughly researched and tested - it's not just making stuff up for the fun of it.

You might be of the opinion that a product that can't be sold on its own merits isn't worth it, but in markets where there is little or no difference between products, how do you differentiate?

I assure you, if it didn't work, companies wouldn't use it. Marketing, that is. It's not the great evil that it's painted to be, although there are some shark marketers out there like there are shark lawyers and shark anything else, as you say.

Marketing is psychology plus money.

If you don't like the dirty business of making money, then you won't like marketing, sure. But millions and millions of people love to buy shiny things that go beep, and lots of other people like to make the shiny things and sell them to the millions. The only way to make your shiny thing stand out from all the other shiny things is through marketing.

Personally, I love to buy stuff. I adore my iPod, even though it's probably no better than the cheaper no-brand Mp3 player of the same spec. I love my Levi jeans and my Denon stereo, my fancy handcream-that's-just-scented-vaseline in a beautifully-designed but disposable dispenser, I love to try new chocolate chip cookies even though all chocolate chip cookies are the damn same, and I love reading Nintendo Magazine because they have managed to make me believe I might miss something important if I don't. I embrace the consumer culture because I like nice stuff. I'm not OTT about it, but I'd miss buying tomatoes on the vine, even though it's a scam.

My profession is simply this: take something and make it appealing so it sells.

That 'something' might be a product, a service, an idea, anything. And 'sells' might be a money transaction, a name on a petition, a round of applause, an email address freely submitted, a hit on a website, a response to a survey or simply a changed perception.

The complex bit is the "make it appealing". That can mean (in some cases) years of research and testing. And there's a whole lot more to it than that. How does the 'something' fit within the company's brand perceptions? How are the markets changing? How are they going to change? What's happening politically, socially, environmentally, that could have an impact? What do people like and why, and for how long? How can you change a negative image? How can you avoid a negative association? So many factors, so much research to do. And then you have to actually come up with the ideas to meet all the criteria! And then (the really fun bit), you have to prove your ideas worked. Return on investment. Your activity has to have a measurable effect and you have to be able to demonstrate it.

Imagine taking a new business, a small start-up with no marketing expertise whatsoever, and helping them to grow and differentiate themselves from the competition. It's wonderful.

Of course, you have to love business and love the concept of making money to appreciate it, but I can't think of many things I'd rather do.

[Elizabeth I]

You guys ever heard of adverbs?
Army Strongly?

Armly Strong?

[Cylinder]

Army Strongly?

Armly Strong?

Nope. I was speaking of the kind that modify adjectives. You know - like Army Strong.

[UserGoogol]

But really, I have no idea if you are behind these or the advertising that actually seems to provide a service to the consumers. I've seen advertising that is merely informative without being insulting, and that's the kind I like. That is, the kind that says "this product exists, and here are the facts about it" as opposed to "this product is love and dreams hewn from raw awesome and you can't live without it, also we sure do like catchy sayings". Personally I'm of the opinion that a product that can't be sold on it's own merits, once widely spread, isn't worth it. In the case of the army, I'm of the opinion that a catchy slogun and tossing a billion dollars in ads isn't going to do anything since everyone pretty much already knows what the army is anyway.

I'm an idiot of course so this is just my gut, but I'm of the opinion that information-based ads are very often useless, since the facts are the facts, and people who are influenced by facts aren't really going to be too effected by ads. In particular for the military, because joining the military is such a big deal, I think people are going to do a lot of independent research and thus whatever nice spin an ad can put on the information is of minimal use. But when people are influenced by the warm fuzzies which a well thought out slogan can bring, that's where the money is.

I remember screaming local car dealership commercials too, but I avoid those at all costs. I feel safe in declaring that I will never ever purchase the insipid product Head On. Never.

HeadOn profits did boost quite a bit though, apparently. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2006-07-30-head-on-usat_x.htm)

[AmateurScientist]

HeadOn profits did boost quite a bit though, apparently. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2006-07-30-head-on-usat_x.htm)

I can't help it if there are idiots who fall for that nonsense. Never mind that the product doesn't even work. It's a topical analgesic. It can't help a headache caused by throbbing or stress.

AS

[RandFan]

Who the hell determined, and how the hell did they do it, that "Head On, apply directly to forehead. Head One, apply directly to forehead. Head On, apply directly to forehead" was something that would sell?

AS Often time it's just a guess. However the folks who work for ad agencies are much better at guessing than most of us. Once a guess or a series of guesses are thought worthy the ads or campaigns are test marketed. If the test market goes well it is expanded.

For what it is worth there is a film about advertising that dates back to the 50's where the narrator spits on a table to demonstrate the effectiveness of shock value in advertising. Annoyance can also be effective though both can backfire. You wouldn't want to spit on a table to get people to come to a restaurant and you wouldn't want to use an annoying ad to get people to believe you have pleasant bank tellers.

[RandFan]

I can't help it if there are idiots who fall for that nonsense. Never mind that the product doesn't even work. It's a topical analgesic. It can't help a headache caused by throbbing or stress.

AS1st rule of advertising. Perception is greater than reality (usually stated "perception is reality").

[joe1347]

Possibly I missed someone else mentioning this in one of the posts above - but just in case.

One marketing (advertising) concept is not necessarily to get a prospective customer (Army recruit) to like your product. Instead, you just want the sucker to somewhat remember or think about your product. A advertisement that is annoying can actually be a more effective technique since it provokes an emotional response that gets that normally brain-dead viewer (of the ad) to actually register (in their brain) the commercial. An alternative marketing concept is to intentionally 'leave out' a portion of the slogan or brand name in the advertisement. The viewers brain will then 'fill in' the missing letters or words. The intent is to again get the 'brain-dead' viewer to stop and think about the ad with the thought that if the viewer actually thinks (a little) - he will remember the product. So back to the ARMY STRONG. Is it annoying (yes) and does it tend to get the view to do a little fill in the blanks (maybe).

Yet more useless information brought to you from one of my Graduate Marketing classes

[steverino]

http://www.bigredtoybox.com/cgi-bin/toynfo.pl?stretchindex

[UserGoogol]

I can't help it if there are idiots who fall for that nonsense. Never mind that the product doesn't even work. It's a topical analgesic. It can't help a headache caused by throbbing or stress.

AS

Actually, it's a homeopathic analgesic. So yeah. My main point was merely that appealing to idiots is where effective advertising happens, in my opinion.

[Dark Jaguar]

Possibly I missed someone else mentioning this in one of the posts above - but just in case.

One marketing (advertising) concept is not necessarily to get a prospective customer (Army recruit) to like your product. Instead, you just want the sucker to somewhat remember or think about your product. A advertisement that is annoying can actually be a more effective technique since it provokes an emotional response that gets that normally brain-dead viewer (of the ad) to actually register (in their brain) the commercial. An alternative marketing concept is to intentionally 'leave out' a portion of the slogan or brand name in the advertisement. The viewers brain will then 'fill in' the missing letters or words. The intent is to again get the 'brain-dead' viewer to stop and think about the ad with the thought that if the viewer actually thinks (a little) - he will remember the product. So back to the ARMY STRONG. Is it annoying (yes) and does it tend to get the view to do a little fill in the blanks (maybe).

Yet more useless information brought to you from one of my Graduate Marketing classes

And what does any of this actually do in terms of sales? And, are you saying that some commercials are made to be intentionally annoying? Wow, I'm not one for terrorist acts but sometimes a bombing may be preferable to the alternative... Hey, it sure would be an attention getter right, make them remember you? :D But hey, so long as a company that sells a "me too" product is able to get on it's feet, who cares if you annoy countless people right? As you can see, I consider being annoying a sin most high :D.

But back on topic, is bad logic being used when doing marketting campaigns? They just say "well they bought it after this ad campaign happened, so it must have been the ad campaign"? That may or may not actually be true.


Personally, I love to buy stuff. I adore my iPod, even though it's probably no better than the cheaper no-brand Mp3 player of the same spec. I love my Levi jeans and my Denon stereo, my fancy handcream-that's-just-scented-vaseline in a beautifully-designed but disposable dispenser, I love to try new chocolate chip cookies even though all chocolate chip cookies are the damn same, and I love reading Nintendo Magazine because they have managed to make me believe I might miss something important if I don't. I embrace the consumer culture because I like nice stuff. I'm not OTT about it, but I'd miss buying tomatoes on the vine, even though it's a scam.
I see. Personally, I'm not like that. Any ol' pair of pants will do, so long as they don't cost me anything important socially. Any MP3 player does the job (had some no-name brand for years simply because it was the cheapest, though I now use a PSP, which I got for other reasons, as my main device). Have no idea who Denon is, but I don't even own a stereo because I don't really want one. I don't even bother with handcreams (soap is fine). I go for the "knock off" brands of food unless they really do taste worse. I don't bother with Nintendo Power because I can get all that information online for "free" (cost of online connection). I'll get tomatoes from anywhere so long as they seem healthy (and a box label isn't going to help me make that decision, I have to see them). I'm not about to say "consumerism is a sin", but I'm not one to care about brand names. I'll switch to whatever is "the best" based on other things at the drop of a hat. I have no loyalties. :D At any rate, I think we've exposed we are two different kinds of people. I have no issue with marketting as a profession in and of itself. People have to know something exists before they can buy it. I just have an issue with trying to trick people into buying something using something like "Mike Tyson eats this jerky soda, you should too." as opposed to a more honest sort of advertising.

This will inevitably lead to an ad campaign with a slogan saying "we're honest, buy from us for that reason" which will miss the mark completely :D.

At any rate, if you get into the market based on just wanting to get a piece of the pie, you deserve whatever happens. If you make a FRICKIN' TELEPORTER, I'm pretty sure all you need to do is film a commercial in your basement using a dimestore camera showing nothing but you demonstrating it and a cheaply superimposed phone number and/or web link, and you'll sell one to every living creature on the planet.

[RandFan]

But back on topic, is bad logic being used when doing marketting campaigns? They just say "well they bought it after this ad campaign happened, so it must have been the ad campaign"? That may or may not actually be true.That's not how it works. Sales figures are analyzed constantly in multiple geographical regions (markets) and there is a very good idea of how many units will sell in each of those regions. It can be predicted to very close degree. Now, let's say that the company is moving an average of X million units a month in 6 major markets. Now, let's say they release a new ad campaign in 3 of the 6 markets and those 3, and only those 3 markets, see an increase of 10%. Guess what happens next? That's right, the campaign is then shifted to the other markets. If those markets then get a similar bump no one is pulling their hair out wondering if the new campaign had anything to do with the increase in sales.

[RandFan]

At any rate, if you get into the market based on just wanting to get a piece of the pie, you deserve whatever happens. If you make a FRICKIN' TELEPORTER, I'm pretty sure all you need to do is film a commercial in your basement using a dimestore camera showing nothing but you demonstrating it and a cheaply superimposed phone number and/or web link, and you'll sell one to every living creature on the planet. "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." It sounds good but it's BS.

Who invented the spread sheet? You know, the killer app that launched IBM. Microsoft? No. Lotus? No. A guy by the name of Dan Bricklin. "Dan who?" you say? He invented a program called VisiCalc. The first spreadsheet. Yeah, he made some strategically bad decisions by sticking with CP/M and Apple. Oh, and let's not forget Apple Macintosh, Beta Max and a million other products that were superior but didn't capture the market in spite of themselves.

Discoveries, invention, innovation, quality, etc., these are all important but in the end, nothing, nothing trumps marketing. Well marketed crap will outsell poorly marketed quality and innovation every single day of the week and for every success that proves the exception I have a hundred that prove the rule.

Now, I don't like that but it's the reality.

[joobie]

And here I thought it couldn't get worse than "It's Not Just A Job, It's An Adventure".

does anyone else remember the classic SNL parody of this commercial?

"port of call: bayonne, new jersey."

[RandFan]

does anyone else remember the classic SNL parody of this commercial?

"port of call" bayonne, new jersey.":D I was thinking of the same thing and was trying to find a mention on it the web. Damn funny, guys humping their butts mopping and scrubbing.

[Mephisto]

An Army of One was beyond stupid and an oxymoron to boot.

Army Strong is almost as stupid. Anyway, it's terrible.

The slogan from the 70s was great. "Be all you can be."

In the late 80s or early 90s, the army had a terrific TV ad campaign that featured soldiers rappeling and doing helicopter assaults and crossing rope bridges. Then it should them sitting around in the field drinking hot coffee. The voiceover said, "We do more before 9 a.m. than most people do all day."

That was a good campaign. Army Strong is stupid.

AS

I also think the new slogan is really stupid, but I don't think the 70s slogan was any better. As Cheech Marin said in Born in East L.A. - "they said I could be all that I could be, but all they let me be was a car mechanic."

The Army of One slogan was also pretty stupid, and I guess they had to change it because the one guy finally realized he kept getting rotated BACK to Iraq.

[brodski]

:From the topic of this thread was I the only one to think that the army had relay lost it, and was advertising under the slogan "We belong dead!" :eye-poppi :eek:

[AmateurScientist]

1st rule of advertising. Perception is greater than reality (usually stated "perception is reality").

I get that. Nevertheless, the US Army isn't just any advertiser. Beyond recruiting, it has to be concerned with its public image. The same is true of big business and professionals who advertise.

What if HP used ads featuring screaming sales pitches a la that Billy guy who yells at you about cleaning products? Its corporate image would suffer tremendously, regardless of whether it sold more product. Ultimately, in the long term, HP would likely suffer as well.

The US Army isn't just selling the prospect of a cool, interesting career to young soldiers. That is the immediate purpose of the recruiting ads themselves, but I think it also needs to do so in a dignified manner worthy of its gravely serious mission of national defense, and without making it appear to be stupid, and without being oxymoronic (as in the An Army of One campaign, which really makes no sense at any level). There is the matter of branding the Army should be concerned about.

The US Marines have done a good job of projecting the image they intend, and also making the Marines appear appealing to young people. Their slogan, "The Few, the Proud, the Marines" was one of the best.

The Army doesn't have anything comparable. "Army Strong" ain't it.

AS

[Darth Rotor]

Their slogan, "The Few, the Proud, the Marines" was one of the best.
It sure is good, and it beats "The Navy, it's not just a job, it's an adventure." (Which I always morphed into "The Navy, it's not just a job, it's your dentures!)

The Army doesn't have anything comparable. "Army Strong" ain't it.
AS
I liked the "more by 9 AM than most people do all day" campaign. Rather than Frankenstein, the old U of Michigan coach Bo Schembeckler Domino's ad tag line would work as well:

"The team, the team, the team!" (As a the Army does not have "the ugliest helmets in the country." ;) )

DR

[RandFan]

I get that. Nevertheless, the US Army isn't just any advertiser. Beyond recruiting, it has to be concerned with its public image. The same is true of big business and professionals who advertise.

What if HP used ads featuring screaming sales pitches a la that Billy guy who yells at you about cleaning products? Its corporate image would suffer tremendously, regardless of whether it sold more product. Ultimately, in the long term, HP would likely suffer as well.

The US Army isn't just selling the prospect of a cool, interesting career to young soldiers. That is the immediate purpose of the recruiting ads themselves, but I think it also needs to do so in a dignified manner worthy of its gravely serious mission of national defense, and without making it appear to be stupid, and without being oxymoronic (as in the An Army of One campaign, which really makes no sense at any level). There is the matter of branding the Army should be concerned about.

The US Marines have done a good job of projecting the image they intend, and also making the Marines appear appealing to young people. Their slogan, "The Few, the Proud, the Marines" was one of the best.

The Army doesn't have anything comparable. "Army Strong" ain't it.

ASAll good points. I agree.

[skullerello]

http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/teach.gif
"Frankenstein" is the name of the scientist. "Frankenstein's Monster" is the name of the monster he created. Dr. Frankenstein was well-versed and educated. He would not have said "Army Strong".

Frankenstein's Monster, in Shelley's work is remarkably erudite. Many of the chapters are written from the first-person perspective of the creature. Here's a sample:
"That is also my victim!" he exclaimed: "in his murder my crimes are consummated; the miserable series of my being is wound to its close! Oh, Frankenstein! generous and self-devoted being! what does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me? I, who irretrievably destroyed thee by destroying all thou lovedst. Alas! he is cold, he cannot answer me."
Here (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) you can read the book for yourself.

The army could do worse than to seek out Frankenstein or his creation for some clever wordplay.

Actually, I was taught that Victor Frankenstein named his creation (the monster) Adam. And, that being the name of the first created man, commited a tremendous transgression against "god". That's why all parties involved suffered.

[marksman]

The Monster compares himself to Adam several times.

"Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with, and acquire knowledge from, beings of a superior nature: but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me."

"I endeavoured to crush these fears, and to fortify myself for the trial which in a few months I resolved to undergo; and sometimes I allowed my thoughts, unchecked by reason, to ramble in the fields of Paradise, and dared to fancy amiable and lovely creatures sympathising with my feelings, and cheering my gloom; their angelic countenances breathed smiles of consolation. But it was all a dream; no Eve soothed my sorrows, nor shared my thoughts; I was alone. I remembered Adam's supplication to his Creator. But where was mine? He had abandoned me: and, in the bitterness of my heart, I cursed him."

"Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. "

Frankenstein never names the creature and the creature doesn't even name himself. It's part of his torment, to have no identity, no purpose given to him by his Creator and unable to find one himself.

[Oroborus]

Aaaaargh! Fire Bad! Army Strong!


Did anyone else find that overly amusing?

EDIT: on a side note is it just me or can no one else remember the slogan for the air force?

[Darth Rotor]

Did anyone else find that overly amusing?

EDIT: on a side note is it just me or can no one else remember the slogan for the air force?
It used to be "Aim High, Air Force!" (Derived I believe from their habit of pissing on their own shoes . . . ) :p

DR

[casebro]

the best padody of military advertising was a radio spot: " You and twelve of you buddys are sealed into an armored steel conveyance...the Few, the Proud, the SARDINES!"

[AmateurScientist]

EDIT: on a side note is it just me or can no one else remember the slogan for the air force?

You mean Chair Force?

AS

[Mycroft]

Sigh. It's not "the army is strong" with words missing, but "I am army strong" - as strong as an Army. Or "we are army strong", or "you can be army strong".

It's a shorter way of saying "as strong as an army" - Army Strong.

"Are you strong?" "Yes, I'm Army strong!"

In other words, they are saying that the individual takes on the strength of an entire army and has the strength of an entire army behind him.

It's very good.

PS, in your interpretation, Tarzan makes more sense than Frankenstein's Monster.

I'd need to see the campaign, but I'm envisioning it more like, "How strong are you? ARMY strong!" as in strong enough to be in the army, not as strong as the army.

Now I want to see the campaign.

[AmateurScientist]

I'd need to see the campaign, but I'm envisioning it more like, "How strong are you? ARMY strong!" as in strong enough to be in the army, not as strong as the army.

Now I want to see the campaign.

I'm with you, and I'd be willing to bet money on it.

"ARRRRRMY Training, Sir!"

AS

[senorpogo]

Lest we forget that, before Frankenstein, the Armed Forces seemingly contracted out to Indiana Jones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVu7jQn9P30

[zakur]

From The Onion:

Life In The Navy Rocks Even Harder Than The Commercial Implied (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42609)

[senorpogo]

From The Onion:

Life In The Navy Rocks Even Harder Than The Commercial Implied (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42609)

Bravo.

[marksman]

That was the Marines, though.

Here's an 1987 Army Recruitment video that borrows heavily from the Chubb Techincal Institute ads of the same period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0B0macEzE

[zakur]

EDIT: on a side note is it just me or can no one else remember the slogan for the air force?It used to be "Aim High," but I had to look up the current one - "Cross Into the Blue." Here is a Case Study (http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=2692) on it's effectiveness.

Also, here is a study from the mid-90s on the Recognition of Military Advertising Slogans Among American Youth (http://www.ijoa.org/imta96/paper19.html).

[shemp]

In other news, the Army has announced a joint marketing campaign with Right Guard Deodorant: "When we're out on 16 hour patrols shooting Iraqis in 120 degree heat, we don't want to pass out from B.O., so we use Right Guard Deodorant. It's Army Strong!"

[Luke T.]

does anyone else remember the classic SNL parody of this commercial?

"port of call: bayonne, new jersey."

Yes, I do! I almost mentioned it in my post. :)

[CapelDodger]

Wow. You just named the brand and its use three times from memory. I wonder how that happened.
There's a leg-waxing product called Veet which I am aware of, despite having no interest in leg-waxing. I know very well why that happened, and advertising is a key element. The only element, in fact.

"Army Strong" wouldn't be aimed at the audience of us. It's aimed at the audience of them. Maybe it'll help to counteract "Army Iraq ****up". Join up and expect to fight, just like the Greatest Generation. Join up because you can expect to fight.

[CapelDodger]

[quote=Oroborus;1988812EDIT: on a side note is it just me or can no one else remember the slogan for the air force?[/quote]
The RAF slogan is "Per Ardua ad Astra", which my Dad (National Service RAF, Lance-Corporal) always translated as "Bugger you, Jack, I've got a dinghy".

[AmateurScientist]

The RAF slogan is "Per Ardua ad Astra", which my Dad (National Service RAF, Lance-Corporal) always translated as "Bugger you, Jack, I've got a dinghy".

I don't think that translates well across the pond. A dinghy is a boat. Why would the RAF say that?

AS

[Rob Lister]

I don't think that translates well across the pond. A dinghy is a boat. Why would the RAF say that?

AS

He misquoted. The second comma should be a question mark. The gh should be a K

[RandFan]

Let's not forget that the US Nave seriously considered using the Village People's In The Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_People)

The United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) considered using the Village People hit "In the Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Navy)" in a recruiting advertising campaign on television and radio. They contacted Belolo, who decided to give the rights for free on the condition that the Navy help them shoot the music video. Less than a month later, Village People arrived at the San Diego Naval base. The Navy provided them with a war ship, several aircraft, and hundreds of Navy men. When the video started showing and the Navy started the planned ad campaign, some newspapers protested using taxpayers' money to fund music videos (especially for a group considered by some to be "morally dubious"). The Navy quickly cancelled the campaign. The scandal tremendously boosted the popularity of the song.

[AmateurScientist]

Let's not forget that the US Nave seriously considered using the Village People's In The Navy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_People)

The United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) considered using the Village People hit "In the Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Navy)" in a recruiting advertising campaign on television and radio. They contacted Belolo, who decided to give the rights for free on the condition that the Navy help them shoot the music video. Less than a month later, Village People arrived at the San Diego Naval base. The Navy provided them with a war ship, several aircraft, and hundreds of Navy men. When the video started showing and the Navy started the planned ad campaign, some newspapers protested using taxpayers' money to fund music videos (especially for a group considered by some to be "morally dubious"). The Navy quickly cancelled the campaign. The scandal tremendously boosted the popularity of the song.

Ha ha ha. That's hilarious.

Come on, Luke, you know you want to sing it.

AS

[Renfield]

Wow. You just named the brand and its use three times from memory. I wonder how that happened.

Strange how advertising doesn't necessarily have to be popular to be effective. Negative political ads, for instance. People in focus groups will say they hate the ads, but then when asked if they will vote for said candidate, they'll also say, hell no, i'm not voting for someone who worships Satan and rapes farm animals (or whatever).

[Renfield]

Had no idea. I'd never make fun of a marketting type to their face, only behing their backs, as a group, unceasingly. :D



http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/1629


Enjoy.