I have written about “Double Take Advertising” (previously, previously). A friend of mine recently snapped this image, which, as far as I am concerned, is a sub genre: “Double Take WTF? Advertising”.
The distinction is subtle; each triggers a double take, but in the latter case, one cannot help but wonder, “WTF?”
I am beginning to suspect that the deep thinkers responsible for this sort of packaging are banking on consumers taking two looks at it, then saying to themselves, “I have got to show this to the [wife|guys at the office|therapist],” thus securing a sale not based on the desirability of the can’s contents, but its humor value. These marketeers have not thought their cunning plan all the way through, however. They did not take into account: a) camera phones, or b) that this market has already been cornered by Mad magazine (Acrobat pdf, page 4).
I was just doing my daily review of headlines for companies I have an interest in, and was intrigued by the latest headline for my previous employer defending its sense of humor. I would really love to know who made the call to pull Mad from the shelves. There are so many places I could go with this one, but I’ll just say I think it must have been a slow news day for Michael Felberbaum of AP.
Off to find a yamika for my beach vacation.
mrpikes reply on August 5th, 2008 7:00 am:
As it happens, I, too, have been following the saga, and I am impressed with Circuit City’s handling of the initial misstep.
Funny how it’s always the cover up that gets you – Watergate, Iran/Contra, Valerie Plame – the original Mad spoof wasn’t news until Circuit City’s internal communication to destroy all copies was disclosed.
Speaking of covering up, it’s not a bald spot, Chris, it’s a solar panel for a sex machine. 🙂 Have a great vacation.