Steinlager ad "We believe"

Product:

Steinlager beer

On face value:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP3_0UG0U4I

This is a sweet tale of a rugby fan who as the All Blacks win the world cup in 1987 decides to drink his last Steinlager next time they win. The ad continues by showing him getting the can and preparing to drink it, only to have it dashed. Sometimes the can must not have been at the forefront of his mine though. One year (1999) he finds it under his bed and this year he finds it in the loft. The ad shows the fan and his buddies walking off to the game with what appears to be his whole neighbourhood.

Effect: 

If they were to have such an ad in 1991, it wouldn't have meant too much. But this ad uses the All Black's poor record at World Cups for comic effect. If I was a Rugby fan (instead of the diehard Leaggie I am), I would have to grab a few dozen and drink them watching the World Cup. But of course, that isn't allowed as Heineken is the official beer. So everyone that watches the World Cup games will be drinking Heineken exclusively. :)

Positives:

This ad is genuinely good. Kudos to their marketing team.

Negative:

Back in the good old days, Rugby was amateur. Now days it is SO commercial. It is a shame that an ad so pointed towards an event cannot say "the World Cup." But Heineken pay the big bucks so they are the only beer that can mention the World Cup. Of course, Steinlager aren't above paying sponsorship because they sponsor the All Blacks. Of course again, both brands are owned in New Zealand by the two large alcohol companies.

Question:
If there is Steinlager Pure, does that mean "normal" Steinlager is made from water with unthinkable nasties?

Comedy Central ads

Product:

Ads during Comedy Central shows are mostly other Comedy Central ads. The problem is, the same ads get repeated over and over and over again.

On face value: 

I enjoy several shows on Comedy Central, but the problem sits with the ads being repeated constantly throughout the shows.

I recorded a few of my favourite shows for a week and noted the ads in those shows. During those nine broadcasts, there were only 17 unique ads. So I wasn't going crazy! The most played ad was the "How I met your mother" ad which was recorded 20 times, followed by South Park ad with 18 viewings. 

Another problem is watching the same ad multiple times during one show. On 27 occasions the same ad was viewed twice during a show and on 18 occasions the same ad was on three times!

This isn't the only Sky channel with this issue, anyone watch ESPN and get sick of "Tommy Smyth wid a why" talking about the "ol' onion bag"?

Effect: 

This ad policy does nothing to get me to watch their shows. 

I watch "How I met your mother" and other shows because they are on other channels like Four and I watch them on Comedy Central so I can see more of them.

I have seen the "Chaser's war on everything" ad so many times that I can't bring myself to watch it.

Even if they had ads advertising actual products it wouldn't be as bad as it is now. Or if they advertised more shows from other Sky channels.

Positives:

No positives, this policy of repeating ads constantly has no upside. The positive of this analysis is that I can record my favourite Comedy Central shows and fast forward accurately through the ads knowing that most ad breaks have five ads.

Negative:

If I am not already watching the show featured in the ad, I won't start. From the ad, "The Chaser's war on everything" looks like the biggest pile of liquefaction ever.

Question:

Why are these small Sky channels so neglected?

Specialized + McLaren Venge

In this post, I get quite personal. I guess I invest a lot of thought into cycling so it just flows.

Product:

The new Specialized S-Works McLaren Venge.

On face value:

While watching Le Tour, they had an ad with riders from HTC Highroad talking about how great their new bike is.

This video is similar, but not the same as the one on tv:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMXAQDufPrE

The riders would have ridden many bikes during their careers and they would have been very good bikes. The consensus is that this big is the best. Therefore it is the best of the best!

Effect: 

Having the pros from HTC Highroad saying how great the bike is should make everyone go out and buy one. But I remember the debacle from last year with their previous bike supplier Scott.

I personally own a Scott Addict bike and I like it. It is light, handles well and I could upgrade parts so I won't be buying a new bike anytime soon.(Unless this blog really takes off!)

HTC Highroad used Scott Addict bikes for the last few years and said they were great! Other manufacturers were making aerodynamic bikes but Scott said that they will continue to make the lightest bikes possible. Buuttttt, before the start of Le Tour in 2010, HTC Columbia (as they were then known) unveiled the new Scott F01, an aerodynamic bike. The team were saying this was now the bike to have. Their star sprinter Mark Cavendish (aka the "Manx Missile" and the "Man from the Isle of Man") didn't win the first two sprints on the new F01 so he went back to the Addict and won five!

Next thing I know, they change suppliers to Specialized for 2011. Why? Is it because Specialized are better? Maybe? Or will they change to another supplier in a year or two and say the new supplier is the best?

Positives:

The bike looks unbelievable! I bought a Tour de France magazine and it came with a large poster with the bike and a McLaren F1 car in the background. I immediately put it on the wall in my music/bike parts/spare room!

Negative:

I went to their website: http://venge.specialized.com/#/home to see what that had to offer. Unfortunately, they dis their other very expensive bike to say how great this bike is. Given this bike will be so horrendously expensive, most people will only be able to afford their other bikes, which they have just proven to be inferior.

Question:

If I had this bike, would I have to worry about getting speeding tickets?