Comments on: Bayantel ad now shows a satisfied kid

By: Ger

Ger — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:04:59 +0000

Enough about commercials. “Satisfaction guarantee”, yeah sure! satisfaction guarantee by whom. In my case satisfaction is to bayantel alone but not to subscribers because I believe always a customers who should tell if the company will satisfy their needs. Great commercials bad SERVICE…. Most company do today…. Don’t just say it! Do it!

By: Bayantel Ad/Billboard: Sex in Advertising? » Touched by an Angel - Parenting, Marriage, Netrepreneur, Lifestyle, Grief Education and Recovery

Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:18:44 +0000

[...] Edit (July 8, 2006)- This ad has been changed (see this entry). On our way from Makati to Quezon City, my daughter quickly took a photo of this BayanTel billboard on the Guadalupe MRT station. They were mortified to see this billboard which shows a semi-naked woman with a “pleased expression” , to put it mildly. SATISFACTION GUARANTEE (sic)? BayanTel is supposed to be a telecommunications company but nowhere in the ad does it show any sign of a phone or internet service. [...]

By: carlo

carlo — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:04:30 +0000

hmmm… naputol post ko. let me reconstruct:

“it’s the sex that made it irrelevant, not the missing phone”

I’m sorry, but that’s not just narrow-minded, that’s simply wrong. You can say that sex made the ad offensive (although i don’t find it to be so), but if sex is irrelevant, so is the pleasure of ice cream.

Perhaps such an argument is a way for you to reconcile your view on this ad with your otherwise liberal thinking — it’s not just that it’s indecent, it’s irrelevant too. Then perhaps the statement above is true in a more profound sense.

But let’s face the truth about advertising, there is no such thing as irrelevant in ad campaigns (except the ones that flop). Their function is to sell stuff, principally by associating ideas with companies and their products. Wholesome, family, sexy, edgy — these are all ideas that drive gut-feel decisions. And sadly, most people make their purchase decisions on gut-feel.

If you really want to change advertising, push for better product disclosure. Make it easier for even the laziest consumer to make informed decisions. Then maybe companies will throw as much money at the engineers as they do at the commercial models. (The salary of models is something that I find obscence and offensive.) Otherwise, if your contented to just sit back, laugh at the funny ads and be touched by the sentimental ads, then prepare to be offended by some sexy ads too. Companies have to earn a living, like you.

By: carlo

carlo — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:53:18 +0000

noemi: So what if kiku works for bayantel? Is he then not allowed to express an opinion here? So what if he has underlying motivations? Don’t we all? Does that somehow automatically make his arguments wrong?

“it’s the sex that made it irrelevant, not the missing phone”

By: Noemi

Noemi — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:09:55 +0000

Buwayahman: Sex in advertising is inappropriate in a very public setting i.e. billboards in a high traffic area. BTW, I am not singling out Bayantel. It just happens that my daughter took a snapshot and thought it was worth talking about. I’ve also blogged about Bench ads in another entry. Other bloggers and forums have already discussed other ads that have unnecessary use of sex in advertising.

By: buwayahman

buwayahman — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:55:57 +0000

Mars,

“The issue here is the unnecessary use of sex in advertising,”

No such thing…sex will always draw eyeballs and it is one of the most effective tools, if not the most, for advertising.

By: kiku

kiku — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:54:52 +0000

Noemi: Hi I’m back. Lets stick to the issue of what is being reasoned here. This is a blog. Every opinion should be heard. It doesn’t matter where it comes from. This is my opinion. It’s not fair and childish to be tracing source just because one opinion is different.

By: Noemi

Noemi — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:56:17 +0000

buwayahman : i was surprised they changed it but I think they didn’t want to incur the ire of the general public. Besides it generated the publicity already.

By: Mars

Mars — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:42:43 +0000

Treble: I’m just gonna assume that you ran out of things to say and, judging by your stellar comment in the previous entry,:

“*irrelevant just because it doesn’t show a phone* or other telco product anywhere in the picture? why? do we expect all ads to be explicit in what product is being promoted? where’s the challenge in that? can’t bayantel, or any other company for that matter, assume that we are discerning (and humorous) enough to get the point?”

that you completely missed the point.

The issue here is the unnecessary use of sex in advertising, not “just because” there was no phone. There is nothing orgasmic about Bayantel, making sex completely unnecessary and irrelevant.

BTW, I was the one who pointed it out to my mom (noemi) and took a picture of the billboard in the first place. That’s why my take on this subject has a little less to do with my mom’s entry and opinions, thankyouverymuch.

By: buwayahman

buwayahman — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:40:50 +0000

On the June 2006 ad: where’s the phone, you ask? Use your imagination. A phone can vibrate right?

But seriously, why was there an uproar over the first ad? Because sex was involved? For all we know the lady was taking a pee…

Does a child eating ice cream make it any better? Doesn’t it promote obesity?

IMO, I like the first one because it was…well…daring and creative. Controversial, maybe, but now we have brand recognition, which I think was what Bayantel wanted to achieve.

The second one was lame and cowardly. If they started their campaign with this, it wouldn’t have been that effective in generating buzz.