Match.com crusades against ‘bachelorism’
—Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
June 15, 2006 | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
They should have bought one of those adjoining third-page ads that phrama companies are forced to include in their advertising. You know, to list all the awful side effects of losing your bacherlordism (weight loss, lowered self-esteem, etc.).
Posted by: Bob | Jun 15, 2006 8:48:32 AM
A less cynical and probably more accurate interpretation of the ironing/eating topic, is that a woman would make her guy take his clothes to the dry cleaners like normal people, and obviously require some variety in the diet, regardless of who was cooking. That is, the woman doesn't want to be seen with a slob, and is certainly not eating the typical bachelor's diet.
Posted by: Ray | Jun 15, 2006 9:16:25 AM
Today's most common ad cliche. Example # 457.
Let's create a wacky "organization" with its own web site to play up whatever point we want to make. Said organization is clearly fictional (WomanAgainstScruff) and the web site is oh-so-ironic. Client feels good and both client and agency make abundant use of the term "media agnostic"
Hacks don't go away. They just reinvent themselves.
Posted by: Alex Cross | Jun 15, 2006 3:31:06 PM
Okay, Alex. It's been done, sure. But, it's such a fresh way to promote an online dating website. It's fun, irreverant and does a great job of covering up the skeeze factor of meeting strangers (or potential serial killers) online.
Would you rather be stuck with eHarmony's "find your true love" schtick, including that sassy song choice..."This will be an everlasting loooooove!!" Maybe trot out another "love expert" talking about how a 5-minute personality test will get you hooked up with your soulmate. Ooooh, how sweeeeeeet. Blech.
I prefer fun. Even if I've seen it before.
Posted by: Desiree Jeffrey | Jun 16, 2006 11:33:33 AM
Last time I checked Desiree, there was a whole range out there between eHarmony's song and wacky-fake-ad-website-#457.
Not sure why you see it as a one or the other proposition.
Posted by: Alex Cross | Jun 16, 2006 11:44:31 AM
fyi, in the spirit of providing more fact-based information, here's a/my collection of online dating ads:
http://adverlicio.us/taxonomy/term/376
Respectfully, I think these ads will suggest that Match's new campaign is a breath of non-cheesy air in a very cheesy category.
Recall, we're benchmarking against Mate1, Passion, and True here, for the most part.
Need I remind you of the horror?
http://adverlicio.us/mate1_com_its_free_160x600
or
http://adverlicio.us/passion_com_satisfy_the_impulse_120x600
Could the new Match ads have been less cheesy? Perhaps. But why quibble about it?
Enjoy!
Posted by: adverlicious | Jun 18, 2006 10:52:32 PM
Why must every campaign have a website addendum? Oh, that’s right. Ad agencies are Interactive these days and busy “engaging” the consumer. Me is so stewpid.
Posted by: Jonah Hughes | Jun 19, 2006 10:28:12 PM
Jonah,
It's a campaign for an online company created by what looks a like a primarily interactive ad agency. Why is there any question thats there's an online component?
(I don't mean this post to be taken in a negative way. I'm just trying to answer the question)
Posted by: kate | Jun 20, 2006 11:44:55 AM












