What do viewers know about good ads? Thanks to the Advertising Rating Co., I no longer have to decide for myself whether commercials are good or bad. The Glendale, Calif., company has devised a ratings system to answer such questions for me, the New York Post reports. The startup is led by a former BBDO exec, so they should know a thing or two about bad advertising. (Just kidding. Couldn’t resist.) It asks a panel of 1,000 consumers to rate ads on their “creative effectiveness” on a scale from 0 to 950. Out of 140 recently graded ads, this Bud Light spot, with two guys at the opera, scored best (527), while this much-derided HeadOn spot scored worst (95). (That itself should be a red flag, as many experts believe the HeadOn stuff is effective, at least from a sales standpoint.) Anyway, unless my math is badly off (and my monthly AmEx statements insist that it is), 527 out of 950 would actually be an F in most standard grading systems. I guess there’s a curve. Not so in my ad school, though, where everything gets an A. Except for Activia’s spots, which score an “I” for irregular—and not in the strictly digestive sense of the term. —Posted by David Gianatasio

December 3, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

---

Just because sales show that the “Head On” commercial ranked high on the effectiveness scale it certainly isn’t deserving of high markings on creative merit. Although most clients are most interested in the bottom line (and most agencies are interested in being employed by clients that have a bottom line) it doesn’t mean we as Creatives get the green light to use 10 typefaces per square inch, create a lot of racket or put shiny, glittery, star icons with drop shadows on new and improved products. One would hope that can sales of Bud will skyrocket thanks to this, blue-collar-meets-white-collar inspired placement.

Posted by: mortarstephanie | Dec 3, 2007 2:27:57 PM

Why is it do difficult for advertisers to understand that the best way to appeal to online customers is to actually APPEAL to them?

Everyday I see yet another new marketing "solution" introduced, yet not a single one has been able to pinpoint what we've pinpointed: ask us what we like, not carefully selected panels that represent us. Use web 2.0 effectively, not deviously. Open yourself up to public scrutiny, and perhaps you'll hear what the public scrutinizes.

Posted by: Bill Nones | Dec 3, 2007 4:19:29 PM

Sometimes creatives forget the purpose of advertising. SELL THE PRODUCT. This meter helps with that. Just ask the clapper, chia pets and ron popiel about dumb products that get sold en masse thanks to ads so bad people remember them ;)

Posted by: glenn | Dec 4, 2007 11:09:31 AM

Glenn, the key word in your comment is "remember". Having people remember you for all the wrong reasons is no way to build a brand. Several agencies have been successful at reconciling great creative with lasting impressions.

Posted by: Swedish Chef | Dec 4, 2007 12:19:58 PM

"Glenn, the key word in your comment is "remember". Having people remember you for all the wrong reasons is no way to build a brand."

---But that's just marketing theory we love to believe, look at P&G, virtually all their commercials are annoyingly awfull, yet people remember their products and keep buying them.

Look at American Airlines, their ads are disgusting, and they're still number 1, while the ads for Virgin Air are fantastic and yet they don't even have 1% of American Airline's market share.

Sure, everyone wants to do ads for Virgin, Apple, Nike, but that's the exception, not the rule. The rule is shitty boring clients that want shitty boring ads that sell.

Posted by: Bobby | Dec 4, 2007 3:31:03 PM

Post a comment

Name:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments:

The opinions expressed in comments are those of the individual poster. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Adweek or Nielsen Business Media. Comments of a promotional nature or comments that are otherwise inappropriate may be removed.