Although completely unethical, the implemented marketing and branding was created with some thought. The personal idea for the company was spawned after he discovered that 30% of users for online dating services were posing as single yet were still in a relationship. The company, which has grown 13 percent since Craigslist shut down its "adult services" portion of the site, capitalized on a niche market gaining 8.5 million customers in 10 countries. After applying some market research on women (the company's target demographic) and infidelity, their website was created to lure these customers through creating a site where women feel "they were the focal point." Consider consumer behavior and the significant increase in registrations after certain holidays (Day after New Year's: 78% Men, 22% Women)(Day after Valentine's Day: 52% Men, 48% Women)(Day after Mother's Day: Women 77%, Men 23%)(Day after Father's Day: 87% Men, 13% Women)
Although obtaining customers might be rather effortless, gaining financial supporters and advertising spots have been more difficult. There is a concern among investors that connection with this company will ruin their perceived character.
Many ads are banned from television advertising. However, the owner feels that the company has suffered an "injustice" through refused ads and the fact that they are unable to purchase the word "infidelity", a word they consider to be their brand, as a key word related to internet search engines. Consider watching the short blurb titled "Banned Commercials Superbowl 2011 in Dallas" before making a decision regarding this rejected ad.
Please consider some of these questions in your comments.
- What do you think about their marketing strategy?
- How would you convince clients to invest?
- How does this company attract you as an investor, if the possibility even exists?
- Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl?
- Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both?
The advertisement was correctly denied by Fox due to the way the commercial presented the product/company as a brothel type service. In any advertisement, you should take it with as much professionalism as possible despite in some commercials now have introduced humor into them.
ReplyDeleteEven though advertisements should be tastefully done so it reaches many different consumers depending on the product/service, companies keep pushing the limits on commercials. The past several years have shown us commercials that have a hint of sexuality in them. It most definitely gets the attention of the audience, but it did create a buzz of controversy since there are teenagers and younger looking at these commercials. After a while though, these commercials began to seem quite normal. Some people do not even pay that much attention to it anymore. So with the ads being discussed above, I believe I would invest in them. Yes, there will be a lot of talk about it, but after a while people will see it as a norm. Like most everything, people will become accustomed to it. Even if it goes badly, at least it got the attention of consumers.
ReplyDeleteEven know some of these ads are without a doubt over the top, people do still view them by the millions. Even know it may not be quite ethical to produce ads like these, it is a smart way to market. It may turn off some people to buying their product but it probably helps the company more than it hurts. I think it would be a bad idea for a company like Johnson & Johnson or another family company to produce an inappropriate ad; however Bud Light can get away with it because they have a different audience that they sell to.
ReplyDeleteThese ads did their job. People are watching them and they are talked about more than the ones that are played during the super bowl itself. Matt is right, some companies can't run ads like this because it would harm the image they have made for themselves, but other companies can do it without a problem.
ReplyDeleteTheir marketing strategy is a little flawed. Instead of trying to advertise on networks that are conscious of their viewers’ ethics and morals they should steer their advertising toward more accepting venues such as adult networks, adult magazines, and such. Venus like these would most likely be more accepting of their product. Also, they could convince clients to invest by not releasing their information to the public. Fox understandably denied their ad because it does not fit into the morals of their viewers. Even if the ad itself wasn’t offensive their product and service could be by certain audiences.
ReplyDeleteThe marketing strategy by the ad company was not in the wrong when advertising to the public. They were only doing their jobs. Yes it was definitely against their morals and unethical but they are doing their jobs to get their company recognized by the consumers. I agree with Leigh Anne that companies wanting to advertise X rated material should use venues that are acceptable to what the product or service is portraying. To convince clients to invest they should not be releasing information to the public. It should be done on proper venues. Fox took the correct approach when denying the ad because these ads are on the air nation-wide and do not need to be flaunting X rated material to all target markets. The ad should be reviewed first as a product then if it is acceptable then they should view the service and if both are acceptable then it should be allowed to run on the air.
ReplyDeleteI think that even though these ads didn't make it to the superbowl they are still effective. Please seem to like what is taboo and are curious. They are willing to go searching to find out what and why these ads werent allowed to air on the superbowl. They were able to advertise themselves off the superbowl without the cost of actually airing their ads. I agree with Leigh-Anne Michael maybe they should advertise on adult networks. As far as the cilents go find investors who are cool with that and show them that there is money to be made in your company and back it up with facts and research. I know if I was an investor and the company had their ducks in a row, I'd invest, but they'd have to promote themselves the right way and to the right places. I understand why fox would ban certain commercials based on content. You have to keep in mind who watches fox. I'd probably do the same because I wouldnt want to offend anyone, but at the same time I feel if you have a problem with it change it and or dont watch it, which is probably another reason why fox was careful with what they put on air they didn't want people to stop watching their station.
ReplyDeleteI think Fox did what was right for not only their station, but also for the protection of the many young people who watch the superbowl. I don't have a problem with the ad or the company, but I don't think a show with so many young viewers is the proper venue for that ad. Even though the ad wasn't aired it probably got as many views for just the production cost of the ad on you tube. these views also probably captured their target market as effectively as it would have if it had been aired. As far as enticing investors or advertisers I would think the company would attempt to appeal to possibly liquor companies or adult appearal manufacturers or other similar companies.
ReplyDeleteI think that as an ad it's definitely doing its job...people are viewing and talking about it like crazy. Perhaps they didn't even want it to play then, but just to get rejected. Like the video said, if you upload your video to youtube with the tag "banned" you're gong to get a lot of hits. This broadens the audience that finds this kind of commercial acceptable because my grandmother (who would be offended by this commercial) isn't going to be on youtube searching for banned superbowl ads, however the average college student (who is a bit more accepting) is much more likely to search for banned ads. The people that are searching for something like this find it at least mildly entertaining and want to see something like this. I would most likely invest in something like this ONLY IF my company had a similar image. But if I were Gerber's baby food I sure wouldn't try something like this.
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure of the reasoning behind banning the ad from this particular company, whether it was the type of company or the ad itself, but I feel like the ad was no worse or "X-Rated" than any other sexually driven Super Bowl ad. Sure, it has "adult situations" and a scantily clad woman, but there are usually a ton of commercials that have one or the other.
ReplyDeleteThe actual Businessweek article had some interesting thoughts on the way the company advertised, if I'm not mistaken. One of which was the idea that people would always be unhappy with their current situation.
At this point in time, as far as the content on television ads has progressed, I don't think the ad should have been rejected. It would be different if social norms weren't as risqué these days.
Television has changed some much over the last decade. Many years ago a married TV couple (Ex. I love Lucy) could not even be shown sharing the same bed yet now EVERYTHING in the bedroom is shown. Like television shows advertisements have changed two decades ago when Calvin klein had 15 year old Brooke Shield in blue jeans with the words "nothing comes between me and my calvins" caused an uproar. But now-a-days you can open a magazine and see a man and woman in a compromising position for a lingerie ad. My whole point is that the world and its consumers have changed and viewing a sexy ad is second nature to most therefore if a company wants to advertise infidelity I am sure it will cause an uproar but it will eventually pass. So Fox let the company advertise. It is probably not best to advertise during American Idol at first but start off slowly by showing an ad during late night tv.
ReplyDeleteHaving a large business such as Ashley Madison where its main business strategy is to promote adultery has never been done or at least to the extent that Biderman has created it. People pay attention to ads that are sexual or have sexual innuendos in them. Even though Ashley Madison’s main business strategy is to sell sex, they are trying to do it in an unethical way by promoting adultery. Yes, the company is just trying to do their job but if not cautious in the way they do it, they could definitely get some heat from people and halts in company growth. I would imagine that getting their advertisements out there to the public through public television would be hard. Television shows and networks don’t want to be associated with something that promotes infidelity. Even though rising generations and the generation of my own are more willing to accept sexual “experimentation” through advertising, companies still know the limit when promoting such an ad. It’s not a completely carefree, everyone is open-minded culture that people assume it is, at least yet.
ReplyDeleteI think Fox did the right thing by banning these adds. I also think the companies who had the adds got their moneys worth because even though the adds were banned they are still being viewed on youtube and maybe even getting more attention than some of the commercials that were not banned. As for the marketing stradegy they are using I think it is a preview of what is going to happen in the future. What's not appropriate now will probably be appropriate in years to come.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was appropriate for fox to ban these ads. I know companies continue to push their limits with the the content of their commercials, but the line must be drawn somewhere. There is a point when something is simply not tasteful and inappropriate. The discussion of these ads, though not shown on tv, have created a large amount of buzz for the companies and consumers have viewed the ads on their own time. While they are not appropriate to be shown on television, they certainly have done their job by creating enough interest in the company and their ad. The ads have served their purpose to draw in potential cliental and have created substantial buzz for the company.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe Fox made the right decision not to air these ads during the super bowl. If fox were to air these types of ads a lot of its viewers would believe that Fox more or less condones this type of behavior which would destroy the family values Fox has worked to develop. I do, however, believe that the marketers of these ads did a great job in getting them out to the public because here we are weeks later discussing these ads and they weren't even aired to the public during the super bowl, which is more than i can say about a lot of the commercials that actually made in on the air.
ReplyDeleteThis commercail situtation is tricky for Fox because of who they are and where their ties lie. They have family oriented shows and are a family network and for them to show racey commercials could cause some serious backlash for them. However, there is a lot of sexual humor in commercials these days that these might not have been ill recieved. It might have been a smart choice to not show the commercials, but at the same time they could have gained a new audience had they showed them.
ReplyDeleteI thought the company's marketing strategy was good as it was effective in targeting their specific target audience. Although the company's product is seen as a 'taboo' subject, they have presented it as something marketable and that appeals to many people, hence their success.
ReplyDeleteIn order to convince clients to invest,the business need to focus not on the service that they are offering, but on how successful they have been with offering it. Capitalizing on success is always a trait of investors in the business world, and although some may steer away from investing because of what they would be investing in here, there will most certainly be investors who would be keen to become a part of the success.
For me, I would not be an investor that would invest in this company, Because of my beliefs on marriage and extra marital relationships, it would be a large contradiction of myself if I were to invest. For some business is business and profits are what matters, but with regards to this particular business, I feel that ethically it is not something that attracts me whatsoever, and so I would not invest.
I feel that Fox have the right to accept and reject whichever ads they choose. If this company does not fit with the beliefs and sentiments that Fox wants to be associated with, then it is probably beneficial to Fox to reject the ad and maintain the integrity of their brand image and reputation.
While the ethics of the company could be questionable due the the ads, they did what they needed to do and that is to get people to talk and think about the brand. While the times are changing and more things are able to be aired, I do think that FOX made the right decision by not allowing this to air, it would have probably caused a big fit with the Parent Council, and that is something that they just do not need right now.
ReplyDeleteTheir marketing strategy is to get a bunch of hits on video sites such as youtube, and once you put the word "banned" in the title, that's when the numbers really start going up.Is it wrong? It's hard to say either way. But does it work? Most definitely. I would tell clients that its going to be seen by twenty million people, and it won't cost you that much at all. They could attract me with lucrative deals that get me to spend a small fraction of what I'll make in return. It was riske for sure, but apart from innuendos that are in every major sitcom on television what was the problem with it? No nudity. No foul language. Just an insinuation that society will joke about all day long with their friends and family, but will refuse to admit they like when the spotlight is on them.
ReplyDeleteEven though it might have been a good ad, ethics is still supposed to be taken into consideration for every decision. You don't ever want to have negative advertising for your company. This advertising may lead others to view the company negatively. I would not promote this company based on personal beliefs. Even if it was a good investment, I, personally, could not stand for a company of this nature.
ReplyDeleteAt this point in time controversial ads are becoming more and more normal. I mean you turn on the TV and there are ads that are pushing the limits as to what can and cannot be done. Therefore, when looking at if controversial ads should be banned or not, I think it all depends on the show that the ad plays during (or even the network it plays on). For example, if a controversial ad was played on Disney that could be a problem but if they are played on an appropriate network, such as spike, then I don’t see a problem. So overall when looking at controversial ads place on fox I think by banning certain ads fox did what was right to keep their image.
ReplyDeleteTheir marketing strategy is very unethical and I would not endorse this company whatsoever. I would definitely not consider investing in this company. This presents a bad image for the investor. If employers found out they invested in this company they may question the employees loyalty to them and relationships in general. Should the ad have been denied by Fox for airing during the Superbowl? Yes, the ad was properly denied. Should rejected ads be based upon content of the ad specifically, the company's product/service or both? Both.
ReplyDeleteI believe that many of them are beginning to go a bit to far for a joke. It was right to ban many of those ads and I am glad they did with a few of the other ones that are just dumb. Though for some of these ads that is just the way they wish to be described as. I do find it funny that most that were banned still got to see a very high viewing rate, probably even higher over the years now than some at the Superbowl just because they were banned.
ReplyDeleteI believe that such commercials should continue to remain banned from TV screens, and remain on the sites of the pages and other media.
ReplyDeleteGeneral audience, including children should never perceive such behavior (like infidelity) marketed as normal and something that they find acceptable.
I understand the niche and marketer's efforts to bring the service as close as possible to every day happening in people's lives, yet there is a high unethical behavior behind it.
I also think that if people want to find such commercials they will find a way to look for them and check them, where children or other audience will not be present.
These commercials should be seen before they are aired on natural television in front of a general audience. These should be selected or declined based on mainly the content that is shown.
ReplyDeleteThese ads however can be shown on specific television channels for adults but definately not through a family shown programme.
I really think i would have a hard time being an investor with some of these companies. A company should have a bit more professionalism and their ads should not be so risque and inappropriate. While it has obviously attracted much attention from this ad I do not feel that it would be in my best interests to invest with a company such as this. I feel that they were right in banning this commercial and it doesn't need to be aired.
ReplyDelete