Tuesday, May 24, 2005
FIRSTGOV.GOV
Organization: US Government
Ad: "Uncle Sams"
Market: USA
Product: FirstGov.gov - Public Service Announcement
Agency: N/A
Year: 2004
Link: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/media/Uncle%20Sams%2030.wmv
Verdict: 2 out of 10
=======================================
Pathetic!!
What nonsense! The US Government must be able to do much better than this to advertise its official web page!
I found this by pure accident when surfing Google for public service announcement ads. It was proudly archived in the Federal Citizens Information center http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov among several other PSAs from the government's historical vault. After watching this by chance, I did not dare look for more. Perhaps at a later date I may try, I am sure there will be plenty more to evaluate.
The creative ingenuity of the US government strikes you immediately in the name selection for its official web portal: http://www.firstgov.gov .
First - not certain what exactly it refers to, one may infer to the First Amendment freedom of speech. However, I would not be surprised if its second meaning is to allude to the US Government as being the First, as in the "Best". After all the World Series and World Champions the US celebrates each year in sports are of US only interest; still they are World Best.
Gov.gov - now isn't that a genius stroke! The domain .gov clearly defines government sites; let's add one more Gov just to make the point!
After this revelation, one could only predict the creative genius of the ad to follow.
What does one associate with the US Government? But Uncle Sam of course. And not just one; one is not enough. Let's put together a collection of Uncle Sams (politically correct with the token minority female for diversity) whose job is to publish in the web all the government info possible. And that's not all. They enjoy their job so much, they even fight over it!
This is so much parody of government institutions and their employees, Mel Brooks could not have come up with it. It is so bad, one could even suspect it was intentional! If so, breaking one cardinal rule of advertising: making fun of your own employees or consumers!
The message could have been so simple. Why it had to be "dressed up" in Uncle Sams doing nonsense around an office, one can only wonder.
Evaluation:
The ad is hardly understandable and marginally relevant by being so silly. The execution is so stupid it undermines credibility and persuasion. The use of Uncle Sams forces branding and ownability - who else but the US Gov't could use such an identity. The execution other than the silly Uncle Sams leave nothing in one's memory. What was it saying again?
Detailed Score: 2 out of 10
1. Understandable: L
2. Relevant: M
3. Credible: L
4. Persuasive: L
5. Well-branded: M
6. Ownable: M
7. Distinctive: M
8. Memorable: L
9. Engaging: L
10. Makes Me Buy: L
This is the best example so far in AD JUDGE of resolving the marketer's eternal dilemma: "which half of the marketing spending is useless?" But then again the advertiser in this case is the government. And as all humble taxpayers know, public budgets are bottomless, so why worry about half of them?
G. Evans
May 2005
Ad: "Uncle Sams"
Market: USA
Product: FirstGov.gov - Public Service Announcement
Agency: N/A
Year: 2004
Link: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/media/Uncle%20Sams%2030.wmv
Verdict: 2 out of 10
=======================================
Pathetic!!
What nonsense! The US Government must be able to do much better than this to advertise its official web page!
I found this by pure accident when surfing Google for public service announcement ads. It was proudly archived in the Federal Citizens Information center http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov among several other PSAs from the government's historical vault. After watching this by chance, I did not dare look for more. Perhaps at a later date I may try, I am sure there will be plenty more to evaluate.
The creative ingenuity of the US government strikes you immediately in the name selection for its official web portal: http://www.firstgov.gov .
First - not certain what exactly it refers to, one may infer to the First Amendment freedom of speech. However, I would not be surprised if its second meaning is to allude to the US Government as being the First, as in the "Best". After all the World Series and World Champions the US celebrates each year in sports are of US only interest; still they are World Best.
Gov.gov - now isn't that a genius stroke! The domain .gov clearly defines government sites; let's add one more Gov just to make the point!
After this revelation, one could only predict the creative genius of the ad to follow.
What does one associate with the US Government? But Uncle Sam of course. And not just one; one is not enough. Let's put together a collection of Uncle Sams (politically correct with the token minority female for diversity) whose job is to publish in the web all the government info possible. And that's not all. They enjoy their job so much, they even fight over it!
This is so much parody of government institutions and their employees, Mel Brooks could not have come up with it. It is so bad, one could even suspect it was intentional! If so, breaking one cardinal rule of advertising: making fun of your own employees or consumers!
The message could have been so simple. Why it had to be "dressed up" in Uncle Sams doing nonsense around an office, one can only wonder.
Evaluation:
The ad is hardly understandable and marginally relevant by being so silly. The execution is so stupid it undermines credibility and persuasion. The use of Uncle Sams forces branding and ownability - who else but the US Gov't could use such an identity. The execution other than the silly Uncle Sams leave nothing in one's memory. What was it saying again?
Detailed Score: 2 out of 10
1. Understandable: L
2. Relevant: M
3. Credible: L
4. Persuasive: L
5. Well-branded: M
6. Ownable: M
7. Distinctive: M
8. Memorable: L
9. Engaging: L
10. Makes Me Buy: L
This is the best example so far in AD JUDGE of resolving the marketer's eternal dilemma: "which half of the marketing spending is useless?" But then again the advertiser in this case is the government. And as all humble taxpayers know, public budgets are bottomless, so why worry about half of them?
G. Evans
May 2005
