Dockers apparel company ran a commercial during last nights Superbowl featuring a group of men wearing no pants. The commercial tried to entice you to go to a website to get a free pair of pants. Click on the link below to view the commercial:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl-commercials/09000d5d81644844/I-wear-no-pants-Dockers-commercial
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl-commercials/09000d5d81644844/I-wear-no-pants-Dockers-commercial
Post comments to answer the following questions:
1. From a marketing standpoint what do you think the goal of the ad was?
2. The ad was placed right after a Career Builder ad featuring people running around in only their underwear. Do you think it was a good idea for Dockers to place their ad after this one? EXPALIN.
3. Bonus: What went wrong with the ad that might drive customers away??
39 comments:
1. The goal of the ad was to make people want to wear Dockers pants.
2. Yes, both commercial made people think about getting pants.
3. The men in the commercial were very unattractive.
1. To get men to wear the dockers pants.
2. Yes, because then the awkward situation placed in that commercial makes us want to wear the cool kakhis.
3. The men in the commercial were not at peak physical performance.
1. The goal of this ad was to get people to go to their website and hopefully be interested enough in their product to get a free pair of pants and then the people would purchase their pants if they liked them.
2. I think that it was a good idea for Dockers to place their ad after the Career Builder ad because it builds up what the Dockers are trying to get across with the free pair of pants.
3. What drove customers away in this ad was probably all the old men running around in their underwear.
1. the purpose of this ad was To sell dockers pants
2. this was a good idea becuase it connected.
3. The fact that theres men walking around in their underwear.
1. The goal of the add was to create interest from people in dockers pants.
2. Placing the ad right after a careerbuilder ad with a similar concept might make the ad to consumers less frightening.
3. The grown men in underwear is scary, and it probably drove away many customers.
1. The goal of the ad was to promote dockers pants, i think they wanted to do this in a funny way, which they kind of did.
2. I think it was a bad idea for them to place their ad after that one because it made it seem like they copied the idea of having pantless people.
3. I think the idea of seeing half naked men in a commercial ment to sell mens dockers may have been a little to forward.
1. The goal of the ad was to make people want to buy Dockers' pants.
2. Yes because they want to rival a company that makes a similar product
3. The ad was weird and kind of awkward
1. This ad was meant to generate traffic on Dockers' website, because they said you could win free pants on there website. This creates publicity for their brand.
2. I think it was, because it made the commercial even funnier, which made me want to enter the contest more.
3. Men singing in their underwear.... it's just weird.
1. I think the goal of the ad was to have people remember dockers and get a free pair of pants. If they like the pants, then they will buy more of docker's pants.
2. Yes, think it was a good idea to put their commercial after the other pantless commerical, because then people watching would remember the commercial better.
3. What may drive the customers away is that the commercial may have been unappealing to some viewers.
Tyler King
1. I think the goal of the ad was to get people interested in dockers.com and after they get their free pants, they might go back and get more pants from the site.
2. I think it was a good idea because the viewer already had the idea of 'no pants' in his mind. So when the option of free pants came up, they might have gotten more interest.
3. The scary sight of many grown men with no pants could be very unapealling and bad for a viewer.
1. From a marketing standpoint what do you think the goal of the ad was?
To get the viewers to purchase Docker pants.
2. The ad was placed right after a Career Builder ad featuring people running around in only their underwear. Do you think it was a good idea for Dockers to place their ad after this one? EXPALIN.
Yes, because in the commercial they featured nice pants that might be suitable for a business scene.
3. Bonus: What went wrong with the ad that might drive customers away??
The said "its free pants, people!"
1. To sell pants to men.
2. Yes, It adds a humor and makes it more memorial after seeing a commercial that isn't as funny.
3. The fact that none of the men are wearing boxers may drive some men that wear boxers away.
1. I believe the goal of the ad was to encourge people to go the website for free pants.
2. I think it would have been better if they had waited to do their commericial beacuse people might get sick of seeing guys with no pants.
3. they guys had no pants.
1. Dockers were marketing mens pants , khakis, etc. TO MEN. and it was sayin that men need to start waring pants. real pants. mens pants, dockers pants.
2. maybe not because people ( I think) tend to get tired of not very attractive running aroud in nothing but undies. But it is still good because it definatly calls attention to the commercial
3. Some men may say that it is not very masculen for a large group of men to walk around in their underpants togehter. So that may drive some consumers of these mens' pants away.
1. to make people aware of there free pants.
2.no because people dont want to see people running around with no pants
3. theres people with no pants on
1. The goal of this ad was to get people to notice the dockers brand and but their pants.
2. I don't think it was a good idea for dockers to place their ad after an underpants ad because then it takes away some of the shock value.
3. You couldnt understand them some times.
1.The marketing stnadpoint is to try getting ppl to where dockers pants.
2.I think it was a good idea for docker to put their comercial after career builder because it looked like it tied in and it also jumped out at you.
3. They are just giving away pants and thats gonna make the customer think that their a cheap brand.
1. To get people to remember the ad and to get them to go to the website.
2. Yea, it put the viewers in a no-pants mood.
4. Guys without pants walking in a field.That should say it all.
1. I think the ad was to show that anyone could wear the pants that they have, and they are trying to sell their pants. These men are all different, but they are all walking towards the pants.
2. I think it was good to place the ad right after that one because it led right into their commercial. The Career Builder commercial brought attention to the viewers, so it was good that the dockers commercial came right after it.
3. Seeing men wearing no pants would probably have turned away a few viewers, especially the parents with kids that were still up.
1. to get men to wear the khakis
2. i dont think it really matters about the placement of the underwear commercials. Both of them probaly got the viewers attention the same.
3. i think the part of when the camera goes behind all of the men walking is were it could of gone wrong for some viewers.
1. The ad was a more indirect approach. I think the goal of the ad was to surprise people at the end, make them curious, and go to their website.
2. Yes, because at first it seemed like they were both tied together but they weren't, so it surprises you afterwards
3. The people aren't wearing any pants which doesn't make sense if they are trying to get people to go to their website to get free pants. It seems more like they are trying to tell people not to wear pants instead of getting free pants.
1) The goal of the ad was to promote the product Dockers to middle age men.
2) No I do not think that it was a good idea going right after the career builder commerical. To me the two commericals were similar just a couple of people walking around with no pants on. However, Dockers did include a catchy tune that probably will be stuck into peoples heads the next day.
3) The problem with the ad that might drive customers away is that it is so random having guys outside with no pants. Maybe they actually should have shown how they were with out pants.
1. I think the goal of this add was to get people to buy the pants that they showed at the end of this video.
2. yes becasue the ad was trying to sell pants and the first ad showed people running around with no pants on so when they look at the next ad it will persuade them to buy the pants.
3. they are running in the middle of no where and the people they had for the underwear ad were not that good looking and to get people to buy the product they should use people that the customers like that is appealing to the eye becasue if they see an ad that they don't think looks good then they wont buy the product.
1. To promote men to buy their pants.
2. Yes because the people in underwear will catch people's attention.
3 The people in the video are wierd an in thier underwear.
1. The goal was to make people look at the ad and remember the commercial. If people remember the commercial they might go and buy Dockers.
2. Yes because I believe less people will be looking for a career building commercial. A lot of people want to see something funny so people will like this commercial better when its compared to another one.
3. If people look at men in their underwear people might find it offensive or woman might think if their man gets Dockers they will walk around in their underwear anjd that can be bad.
1. I think the goal was to get people to go on the Dockers website and buy pants.
2. No, because i saw both commercials and didn't remember what they were for. Having both right beside each other made me forget the purpose of them.
3. I think it might offend some people or it might have made people mute the tv or change the channel for a second.
1.The goal was to get people to go to the Dockers webiste and to get a pair of free pants and hopefully if the people like them they will buy another pair.
2.I do not think it was a good idea to do that right after that commercial because it kind of seems like they were copying there idea so it wasn't as funny.
3.It might have offended people so they might have turned the channel.
1. to get people interested in Dockers
2. i dont think it was a good idea just because people are gonna remember the one before it and not their ad.
3. The men not wearing any pants probably creeped some people out.
1. to get your attention by having men walk around with no pants on then inform you about a product (dockors pants)
2. No because it takes away from some of the memorableness of the ad and it isnt as noticable as if it would have been by itself
3. nothing was evident
1. I think the goal to this commercial was to get your attention and be tempted to go to their website.
2. No, I don't think it was a good idea to have it right after because everybody was caught off guard by the first no pants commercial. Then having another one follow right after made them run together and I wasn't paying attention because i thought they were the same commercial.
3. Nothing
1.) Their goal was to have people visit their website, and get a free pair of pants.
2.) No because people aren't going to remember it as well.
3.) Nothing noticeable went wrong with the commercial.
1. I think the goal of the ad was to get people to go to the website to get a free pair of pants and persuade people to wear dockers by being humorous.
2. I think it was a good idea because people might only remember the dockers ad and forget about the Career Builder one that was right in front of it.
3. Some customers might not to look at people with just underwear on and they might think it is gross.
1. To get people to visit Dockers website and buy pants.
2. No, i dont think it was a good idea. People might have thought that it was the same commercial.
3. Some people might be bothered by the fact that they weren't wearing any pants.
1. I think the goal of the ad was mass marketing because it was played during the superbowl but also to get people to remember it. This commerical was so different and out there that people are going to talk about it for the next couple of days. This is continuous advertising even after the commerical aired.
2.No, I don't think that was the best idea for Dockers because if there are 2 commericals with people only in their underwear then the Dockers name won't stand out. People might confuse the Career Builder ad and the Dockers one.
3.I'm not sure. I didn't see the commerical live last night.
I think the goal of the ad was to inform people about the pants and get them to try their product. I think it was a good idea that they placed their ad after taht specific ad because the last thing left on peoples minds would be their commercial because it happened last and got their attention. Maybe the ad was a little to revealing and it drove customers away.
1. to get people to try Dockers pants for free and hopefully they would also purchase some in the future.
2. It probably wasn't a great idea to set it up that way because i bet some people would have stoped paying much attention to the TV or turned it off or something for various reasons after seeing a bunch of people in their underwear.
3. I'm not sure.
1) The goal of the ad was to convince people to wear docker pants.
2)No, I do not think it was a good idea to place to have this ad placed after the Career builder ad because the audience would think that they were copying the other company, and the audience could have confused the dockers ad with the Career builder ad.
3)The advertisement was somewhat inapropiate when they showed close ups of the men.
The goal of the ad was to make people laugh
It was not a good idea bc people could of gotten the two commercials mixed up
I could not find anything particulary wrong with the ad
1) To promote the the company by givning away a free pair of pants so that people can try thier product and hopefully want to buy more.
2) It was a good idea because people who are going to use career builder are going to need some nice presentable pants.
Post a Comment