he talks about the logo being a "machine gun", no it is a rifle and the company did offer to replace it. No guns are shown and the do sell other items so they clearly meet the requirements to have the ad. But it is not my call and they saved a lot of money and get lots of free press anyway.

Even if it DOES go against the written policy.

Last edited Sat Dec 7, 2013, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Don't people know how to make ads? First rule is NEVER turn off the audience. In that regard, this Ad does nothing to discourage people to turn the channel or to go to the kitchen to get a beer (many recent Anti-Smoking ads do that, but as I have written on other posts that is the intention of those ads).

The second rule is keep people entertained, get their attention and hold it. This ad fails that test, it shows a man driving home, picking up a paper and walking into his home. What is more BORING? It gets worse, he hugs his wife and his baby. The wife appears at about about 27 second after the start of the ad, the baby at about 41 seconds from the start of the ad. Much to long.

Here is the Ad Council's anti smoking ad from the 1960s, a fairly effective, but not as good as the Kick the Habit ads that succeeded it (I can not find any on the net right now). In the Anti-Smoking ad, notice the child is introduced within 3 seconds of the ad, the rest of the ad is all up beat, happy, you see the father and child enjoying each other's company. It draws the TV audience in, then slams them with the Cigarette. It is also a minute long (a little to long for most ads even in the 1960s) but it is entertaining to watch:

After looking at that Ad, look again at this proposed Ad, the father is NOT interacting with anyone for almost HALF of the commercial. All it is talk about how he needs to secure what he has, visually all you see is his car and then his house. This emphasis these as HIS. The voice over says he has to protect his family, but given the visual that clearly includes his possessions. His wife and baby seems to be afterthoughts.

From an advertising point of view it is a BAD AD. It does not draw the audience into the ad, it emphasis the need to "Protect" which is a NEGATIVE concept (and as a Negative Concept should be avoided).

It would have been better if they showed him, his wife and baby within 3 seconds of the start of the ad, maybe going out camping, to the mall, dinner etc. All happy and together. You thus have a positive image of this family within seconds of the start of the ad, and as such draws in the Audience. Then have the Father get into the car with a over vice that the family has confidence because he knew how to protect them. Positive ad, good connection with the Family, No need to show the firearm, but answer the question why does the family feel it can leave the safety of their home? Because of the ability to own a weapon.

Another way, is again start with the family and how they enjoy being around each other in a gun range. family activity, positive image.

You just do NOT sell ideas (and that is what Advertising is, selling people the concept that X is good for them) unless people have a positive image of it. Protection is a negative concept, only use it if you can make a positive spin on it and emphasis the positive. The classic example of this is when front wheel drive cars first came out in the 1970ss. Car makers showed how well front wheel drives cars went in the snow, especially up hill. On the other hand the car makers avoided the fact that well front wheel drive cars go better UP a hill, rear wheel drive cars do better going DOWNHILL. Why was this later fact not mentioned? For it was a negative, and advertising should emphasis the positive.

Now, when people actually start to look at what you are selling, you have to produce a different set of ads for them. In the case of most products that means flyer's or today an Internet presence. Again you mention the positive, but also give data that some people will view negatively (i.e. payload in a pick up truck for example, or actual room in the back seat of a car). In this regard the ad avoids going such details for the TV ad should NEVER go into details. That is for the net (and in olden data flyer's).

Just a comment on this ad and why it is a poor ad, it does NOT grab people, it does NOT entertain people, people will NOT talk about this ad in terms of an ad. It is just bad, you think people will have learned how to do good ads, Gobbles did it in the 1930s and Madison Avenue has been doing it since the 1920s. They should hire a professional to make their ads AND listen to his or her advice.

for Browning in which featured rows of people from all walks of life -- businessman w/briefcase, nurse, firefighter, sporting "dandy," housewife, farmer, factory worker, student -- smiling and holding their new shotguns. At once, democratizing & pluralistic values were emphasized, as well as the happiness of the characters. And the shotgun was "disarmed" of its threatening image. Said another way: You meet the nicest people on a Honda.

While I agree on your assessment of the ad itself, I think you missed their intent. I sincerely doubt that Daniel Defense thought their commercial would be approved as the NFL has pretty clear rules on weapon advertisements. Their main intent, in my opinion, was to be rejected and have the story become viral, which it now has.
Before this, I had never heard of Daniel Defense or their products. Now I have. Had the NFL actually approved their ad, I would have ignored the ad because, as you stated, the ad itself pretty much sucks considering the stage it was marketed from.

I think this is brilliant marketing. The very fact that we are discussing this in a forum proves my point. So I hope I don't come across as belittling your opinion, which is very valid in a traditional marketing setting, but this type of marketing is up there in brilliance with Madmen type advertisement. This is not a good ad, but it is a very effective one, and guess what: it did not cost them $3 million dollars.

-D

But to go Viral, not only must the ad be controversial, it has to be good. Thus this ad passes the first test (it is controversial) but it still fails the second (It is NOT a good ad as I pointed out above).

Now, they are people who sees themselves as the man in that ad, and the ad would appeal to them. The problem is such men do NOT need confirmation of the beliefs (which is what the ad does) and thus the sole purpose of any ad to such men is to get them to buy your product. In such cases the better approach would just to show them what you are selling, not do that whole show about protecting your property and family.

There are three parts of any sale, the pre-sale, the sale, and the post sale. In order of importance, it is the pre-Sale (To get people to want your product), the post-sale (To confirm people that what they purchased was the smart thing to do) and the sale itself (the least important part of the sale). In the first part of the ad, how does it shows HOW the product would protect the property and family of the potential buyer? The same from a post sale angle, how does the ad support the purchase of the item as a smart purchase? The ad does NEITHER and as such is still a bad ad.

To have a true controversial ad, it must not only be controversial but good, and it is the later test this ad fails at.

I mean, saving lives and all that.

To the point where the weapon will literally blow up in a person's face.

Both use a rotating bolt design (independently derived during WWII, both based on Medium and Heavy Howitzers and guns and how they closed and sealed behind the bag charges used to fire such weapons).

The main advantage of the rotating bolt is that any pressure from the firing of a round in the chamber is contained in the chamber, none of it is transmitted to the bolt and its locking mechanism. This permit a light bolt that does NOT have to be that strong except in the rotating head. Thus if one of these weapons "blows up" it is the chamber and the barrel that takes all of the pressures NOT the bolt. Thus only the barrel (which includes the chamber) and the rotating bolt head has to be of top quality steel.

It is NOT the SMLE bolt action that did not lock behind the Chamber but at the rear of the bolt, so the whole pressure load had to be held by the bolt at its rear locking location. These are NOT 1903 Springfields (and other rear locating Mauser type actions), whose only lock on the bottom of the chamber and spreads the pressure of the round going off through the bolt.

The SMLE has the greatest potential for failure of the bolt, but I have never read of any such failure. The 1903 had such failures in the 1920s, but that was tied in with the use of copper shell casings and once withdrawn such failures ended (the US Army also pulled all such "Low Numbered" Springfields and applied an improved heat treatment to later Springfields that ended such failures).

Please note, no one was killed by the These low numbered Springfields, because they were well built, but they did "burst" on occasion till the copper rounds were used up AND the low numbered Springfields had been pulled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1903_Springfield


http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?180954-Need-Photo-Of-Cracked-Springfield-M1903-Receiver

Just a comment that these two designs are probably the least likely to explode EXCEPT when it comes to the barrel of these gun makers go with cheap materials.

Side comment on Wikipedia Springfield site:

The Wikipedia Springfield cites makes what I considered three mistakes as to the 1903 Springfields. First they down play the problem with the Copper rounds. The US Marines were using the same low numbered Springfields and NEVER had a failure for they used only brass rounds. It was the US Army that used the low cost copper rounds AND had the bursting barrels.

The second problem is with the replacement of the M1 Round (the 174 grain round adopted in 1924). It was NOT do to "the need for extreme long-range, rifle-caliber machine-gun fire was decreasing" but do to the problem the M1 Garand had with handling the M1, 174 grain round. The M1 Rifle could NOT handle the M1 Round, so the Army came up with what they called the M2 found, which was a return to the specs of the M1906 Round.

The Third problem I have is WHY the US Army continued to use the M1903 till the end of WWII. The reason was doctrine. The M1903 was considered to have longer range potential with the same ammunition AND capable of firing rifle Grenades must easier the the the M1. Thus every Infantry Squad during WWII was to have ten (10) M1s, one (1) M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and one (1) M1903 Springfield. That was doctrine coming from the Pentagon. Units could vary from these specs, but not that much (My Father's National Guard Outfit rejected the M1903A3s for they had kept many of their M1903A1s when told to turn them in to be replaced by M1s. In Combat in Normandy my Father's Squad had 11 M1s and One BAR (Till he picked up a Second BAR and used it with the First BAR in his squad for about a month till it was taken away from him, he had looked for a M3 Submachine gun but could not find one but when he saw the BAR laying there, he picked it up).

The Marines preferred the M1903 till they hit Guadalcanal, it was more reliable (Bolt actions are always more reliable then semi-automatics, thus any country that decided to replace its bolt actions rifles with Semi-automatics rifles had to accept weapons with lower reliability and greater jamming then the bolt actions rifles they were replacing). The M1903 had superior accuracy and greater range (and was lighter) then the M1. The M1 had superior fire power.