by
Deal-of-the-day juggernaut Groupon has responded to the controversy surrounding its recent Super Bowl ad.
The startup’s first offline ads, which feature celebrities solemnly intoning about a serious issue associated with social good — before segueing into a pitch for how the celebrity has used Groupon to save money — has generated significant criticism on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites.
You can see the series of ads at Groupon’s “Save the Money” microsite. Here’s one spot that aired during the Super Bowl:
On the company blog, Groupon founder and CEO Andrew Mason attempts to explain the rationale behind the ad and point out that despite the laissez-faire tone of the overreaching campaign, Groupon is actually donating money and highlighting the causes it seemingly dismisses.
Groupon’s campaign, which can be viewed at SaveTheMoney.org, was conceived by the advertising firm Crispin Porter + Bogusky. CP+B is well known for its button-pushing advertising campaigns — in fact, drawing ire from viewers is part of the agency’s M.O.
In 2009, AdWeek named CP+B “Agency of the Year” and quoted an executive at the agency as saying, in regards to controversy, “we ask ourselves, ‘Would the press write about it?’ We use that as a guide and it’s worked out pretty good for us.”
Groupon classifies the campaign as “making fun of themselves” and says that offending customers was “the last thing [it] wanted.”
Regardless of intentions, customers are offended. The disconnect, it seems is that it is unclear from the advertising spots that Groupon is actually giving money to the causes it mocks. Most people can handle a good-natured parody of a Sally Struthers “Save the Children” ad, provided that at the end of the spot the viewer knows that the underlying cause is actually benefitting,
For what it is worth, we believe that Groupon and its agency absolutely expected the public reaction to the ad. Groupon basically says as much in its blog, noting that “[it] took this approach knowing that, if anything, they would bring more funding and support to the highlighted causes.”
The advertisements certainly have individuals talking. What impact (if any) this campaign will have on Groupon’s overall brand perception remains to be seen.
What did you think of the ads? Let us know.
Deal-of-the-day juggernaut Groupon has responded to the controversy surrounding its recent Super Bowl ad.
The startup’s first offline ads, which feature celebrities solemnly intoning about a serious issue associated with social good — before segueing into a pitch for how the celebrity has used Groupon to save money — has generated significant criticism on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites.
You can see the series of ads at Groupon’s “Save the Money” microsite. Here’s one spot that aired during the Super Bowl:
On the company blog, Groupon founder and CEO Andrew Mason attempts to explain the rationale behind the ad and point out that despite the laissez-faire tone of the overreaching campaign, Groupon is actually donating money and highlighting the causes it seemingly dismisses.
Groupon’s campaign, which can be viewed at SaveTheMoney.org, was conceived by the advertising firm Crispin Porter + Bogusky. CP+B is well known for its button-pushing advertising campaigns — in fact, drawing ire from viewers is part of the agency’s M.O.
In 2009, AdWeek named CP+B “Agency of the Year” and quoted an executive at the agency as saying, in regards to controversy, “we ask ourselves, ‘Would the press write about it?’ We use that as a guide and it’s worked out pretty good for us.”
Groupon classifies the campaign as “making fun of themselves” and says that offending customers was “the last thing [it] wanted.”
Regardless of intentions, customers are offended. The disconnect, it seems is that it is unclear from the advertising spots that Groupon is actually giving money to the causes it mocks. Most people can handle a good-natured parody of a Sally Struthers “Save the Children” ad, provided that at the end of the spot the viewer knows that the underlying cause is actually benefitting,
For what it is worth, we believe that Groupon and its agency absolutely expected the public reaction to the ad. Groupon basically says as much in its blog, noting that “[it] took this approach knowing that, if anything, they would bring more funding and support to the highlighted causes.”
The advertisements certainly have individuals talking. What impact (if any) this campaign will have on Groupon’s overall brand perception remains to be seen.
What did you think of the ads? Let us know.
No comments:
Post a Comment