I still don't understand the connection people make between an ad being "highly amusing or creative" and being "successful". The Cars.com ads were indeed average as far as creativity goes, but frankly they can't lose whenever they advertise because their domain name pretty much gets the message across on its own.
You want to find cars online? Cars.com. No marketing shpiel, no 30-second story... we got cars, the website is Cars.com, have a nice day.
I'd say that the small amount of creativity that did go into the ads actually took away from their effectiveness. I would've preferred the logo on black for 30 seconds and a voice-over, or a demo of the site. Not only is it unnecessary to tap into people emotionally when you're Cars.com, it's actually a marketing misfire.
It's a product's job to generate emotional ties to the consumer - Audi and Bud Light's ads were done appropriately, putting more concern behind an emotional tie than the actual product. But Cars.com isn't a product... it's a consumer resource, one step above newspaper advertising, and you all know what dealers put out in print ads: total garbage with big bright words like BLOWOUT and $99/MO. It's crap, and it works(when there's actually eyeballs to read it), because that's the level the customer is on when they open a newspaper. You have to know where your brand hits the customer mentally, and pitch your ads accordingly.
Whether or not Cars.com's ads made people laugh is of no importance whatsoever... their name was up there, and Autotrader's wasn't... that's all that matters. Let's not forget the notorious tendencies of people to remember the ads more than the companies who paid for them when there are similar brands running spots. I've heard a handful of people incorrectly attribute the Amp soft drink spot to Pepsi Max and vice versa. It's vital on Superbowl spots to be the only representative of your industry.
You want to find cars online? Cars.com. No marketing shpiel, no 30-second story... we got cars, the website is Cars.com, have a nice day.
I'd say that the small amount of creativity that did go into the ads actually took away from their effectiveness. I would've preferred the logo on black for 30 seconds and a voice-over, or a demo of the site. Not only is it unnecessary to tap into people emotionally when you're Cars.com, it's actually a marketing misfire.
It's a product's job to generate emotional ties to the consumer - Audi and Bud Light's ads were done appropriately, putting more concern behind an emotional tie than the actual product. But Cars.com isn't a product... it's a consumer resource, one step above newspaper advertising, and you all know what dealers put out in print ads: total garbage with big bright words like BLOWOUT and $99/MO. It's crap, and it works(when there's actually eyeballs to read it), because that's the level the customer is on when they open a newspaper. You have to know where your brand hits the customer mentally, and pitch your ads accordingly.
Whether or not Cars.com's ads made people laugh is of no importance whatsoever... their name was up there, and Autotrader's wasn't... that's all that matters. Let's not forget the notorious tendencies of people to remember the ads more than the companies who paid for them when there are similar brands running spots. I've heard a handful of people incorrectly attribute the Amp soft drink spot to Pepsi Max and vice versa. It's vital on Superbowl spots to be the only representative of your industry.
