Characteristic features of a good ads

characteristics of a good ad must have the criteria below:
       1.Mempunyai clear targets, to determine the target consumers are the main target and the second target, is also to determine the install media, advertising and consumer target setting depends on the quality, price, distribution (range of marketing)
       2.Mempunyai focus on the things that you wish to communicate dariproduk and services in advertising.
        3.Mempunyai certain attraction to consumers in sasarnya can stop to note the content of ads, as well as words interesting words, the pull ads appear from an attractive layout design.
        4.Sajikan ads with attractive because of a great ad with the message body if not in a good serve will not be attractive.
         5.Komunikasi ad has four main elements, namely: a.Pengirim ads are producers or in the advertising business in representing the advertising agency

          b.Isi ads in the ad headline is a short sentence of not more than 10 words and direct consumers can expect a lot of information about products and services additional information body copy when the consumer is interested.

c.Media communications serve a good ad in the print media, electronic media or other media, among others penetrasinya internet media in Indonesia is still lacking, billboards, etc..
d.Penerima ads target consumers in our products or services of goods
         6.Pilihlah slogan with the word said that is compact and contains an overview of the headline on which the consumer can read more detail.
            example:
nike shoes with the "just do it"
or yamaha montor
with the "Blog Archive your heart".

Advertising Your New Business

Q: My new business offers wash, wax and oil change services to customers at their work or home. I plan to have a front-end advertising budget of $500 and will contribute $100 per month thereafter. What would be the most effective means of advertising on this limited budget?
A: The three questions that must be answered are these: 1. How powerful is your message? 2. Is your ad budget sufficient for the size of marketplace you're attempting to reach? 3. How committed are you to the success of this venture?
The idea of having one's car washed and oil changed without having to make a special trip certainly has some appeal. But since the idea is new, most people are going to have some serious questions they need answered before they're going to be willing to dial your number.

Mooncup Makes Sure Your Lady Parts Are Feeling the Love

Then they show an image of the Mooncup, which looks quite like the top 1/3 of an industrial-strength condom -- upside down -- and conjures some mental pictures that would be hard to make cute. Sure enough, a bit of search-engine enterprise reveals that, while many women swear by Mooncup (and its gum-rubber cousin The Keeper) others have been bedeviled by messiness issues too graphic to detail here. Not to mention sloshing.
"We bet you winced when you saw this," the text says, and the text ain't lyin'. "Everyone does. But there are three reasons why we think it's important that you get to know it."
Actually, two reasons: 1) the aforementioned deleterious effects of paper and cotton, "which often contains bleaches and pesticides" and 2) "Every woman will use an average of 12,000 sanitary products in her life, which can be replaced by one reusable Mooncup." Do you take a mesh sack to the grocery store to save on paper and plastic? Same deal.
We actually think the green pitch is less powerful. Mind you, tampons and pads aren't entirely yuck-free, but for convenience and confidence they retain major advantages. What Mooncup does so well here is position itself as a feminine indulgence -- not for some characterless piece of anatomy but for Lady Vajayjay -- who is suddenly not so much an organ but a pet.
That's why the best part of the site is a poll, letting women (and apparently a number of 15-year-old boys) offer their own pet names. Some of them are charming: Schlippy Shmoo, Baby Bear. Some of them are mean: Palin and Thatcher. And some of them are hilarious: Map of Tasmania; The Downtown Dining and Entertainment District; and Anastasia Beaverhousen.

advertise, winning

The winners
Ah, but the hits. So many wonderful, ingenious, breathtaking hits. Contrary to Jeff Goodby's silly assertion that I hate advertising, the fact is that I cherish the advertising age and am devastated to be seeing its dying days. I am also admiring verging on ecstatic whenever episodes of unalloyed genius punctuate the depressing preponderance of mediocrity and client-underwritten masturbation. And I've been thrilled to document them.

Among those masterpieces are the obvious: Nike in just about everything it does; the original Energizer Bunny campaign (1989); Levis; Absolut; ESPN SportsCenter (1995-); "Always Coca-Cola" (1993-2000); "Got Milk?" (1993-); Budweiser "Whassup!" (2000); iPod silhouettes (2003); Honda "Cog" (2003) and "Grrr" (2005); Dove "Evolution" (2006); Apple's PC and Mac (2008); the eTrade baby (2008); VW in four countries, including "Da da da" (1997) here here here.

But I've also been blown away by work that elsewhere isn't necessarily regarded as immortal: Cotton Inc. "The Fabric of Our Lives" (1989); Ross Perot's infomercial (1992); Dockers' "Colors" (1992) (a Joe Pytka TV campaign even Pytka believes un-extraordinary); Ikea, featuring a gay couple, just being a couple (1994); a hilarious French Orangina commercial that showed an actor in an Orangina-bottle suit being shaken vigorously (1996); Heinz using its labels as media to announce, among other things, "the rude ketchup" (1999); Dyson vacuums (2003); Burger King's "de-Friend" promotion (2008); Will.i.am's Barack Obama tribute (2008); and Maloney & Porcelli's restaurant's "Expense-a-Steak" online fake-receipt generator (2009).

One of my favorites in 25 years was a 1993 print ad for American Standard bath hardware, which subtly anthropomorphized things such as faucet handles by announcing, "They've seen you naked. They've heard you sing."

Another, unfortunately, was a 1997 TV spot for a Spanish skin moisturizer called Esencial. It depicted a pretty woman bicycling down a country lane when her chain began to squeak. So she took some of her Esencial, daubed it on the chain and resumed riding. But the chain still squeaked, because Esencial is "Never greasy." Amazing: a demonstration of product non-attributes. I gave the spot four stars and lobbied heavily for it to win the Cannes Grand Prix.

HONDA: Garfield calls the 'Grr' spot 'a masterpiece.'

And it might have, had it been a real ad for a real product. But it was a ghost. A fake. A fraud.

Oy vey.

Bum calls
Of course, at least I was correct about the fake ad's real genius. About a dozen times over the years I have been simply, horribly wrong: 1) dumping on the original "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" campaign (2003) and the McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It" campaign (2003); 2) Lavishing praise on an obnoxious Australian-rules Energizer pitchman named Jacko (1987), when we should have called for his deportation, and awarding 3 � stars to a quirky Reebok campaign titled UBU (1989), which focused on eccentricity instead of sneakers, infuriated the trade and lasted about five minutes; 3) damning with faint, 2�-star praise the original Saturn "A different kind of company" campaign (1990) and Nike's "Just Do It," -- 3 stars -- which we found a trifle harsh (1988).

Yeah, since then it has harshly become one of the three greatest campaigns in advertising history.

I also kind of regret being the only person in America who kind of liked McDonald's roll-out of the Arch Deluxe (1996). And I'll never live down the most quoted line in AdReview history, my description of the late Dave Thomas, in his debut as Wendy's spokes-founder, as "a steer in a half-sleeve shirt" (1989). The part about him being a theoretically perfect frontman for the square, old-fashioned burgers, that I had right. The part about the clunky writing and halting delivery in the first spots I also can defend. What I cannot defend is the meanness, the snideness, the cheapness of the ad hominem. I broke the Walter Kerr rule, and the shame still burns.

On the other hand, I harbor no regrets whatsoever for eviscerating the most repugnant advertisers of my tenure: Benetton, for ostentatiously exploiting disease, war, religion and the victims of social injustice to push pricey mix 'n' match separates; Calvin Klein, arsonist, for using increasingly aggressive sexual images to ignite outrage, knowing that the media engines and ladders would inevitably race to the scene; GoDaddy, for trafficking in the most puerile and degrading T&A; Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, for smears of the ugliest kind (2004); Camel and Kool (1991), the lowest of the tobacco-marketing low, for using cartoon characters to cultivate children; Nintendo (1994), for telling adolescents to "hock a loogie at life"; and General Motors, for 1) jumping on the gruesome tragedy of 9/11 to sell Chevys and Pontiacs with its perverse "Keep America Rolling" 3,000-dead sale-a-bration (2001), and 2) having the gall on Earth Day, after decades of lobbying against emissions and mileage standards, to celebrate "environmental progress" (1990).

This, I said, was akin to "John Wayne Gacy celebrating the International Year of the Child."

The AdReview staff was proud of that one.

advertise, winning

The winners
Ah, but the hits. So many wonderful, ingenious, breathtaking hits. Contrary to Jeff Goodby's silly assertion that I hate advertising, the fact is that I cherish the advertising age and am devastated to be seeing its dying days. I am also admiring verging on ecstatic whenever episodes of unalloyed genius punctuate the depressing preponderance of mediocrity and client-underwritten masturbation. And I've been thrilled to document them.

Among those masterpieces are the obvious: Nike in just about everything it does; the original Energizer Bunny campaign (1989); Levis; Absolut; ESPN SportsCenter (1995-); "Always Coca-Cola" (1993-2000); "Got Milk?" (1993-); Budweiser "Whassup!" (2000); iPod silhouettes (2003); Honda "Cog" (2003) and "Grrr" (2005); Dove "Evolution" (2006); Apple's PC and Mac (2008); the eTrade baby (2008); VW in four countries, including "Da da da" (1997) here here here.

But I've also been blown away by work that elsewhere isn't necessarily regarded as immortal: Cotton Inc. "The Fabric of Our Lives" (1989); Ross Perot's infomercial (1992); Dockers' "Colors" (1992) (a Joe Pytka TV campaign even Pytka believes un-extraordinary); Ikea, featuring a gay couple, just being a couple (1994); a hilarious French Orangina commercial that showed an actor in an Orangina-bottle suit being shaken vigorously (1996); Heinz using its labels as media to announce, among other things, "the rude ketchup" (1999); Dyson vacuums (2003); Burger King's "de-Friend" promotion (2008); Will.i.am's Barack Obama tribute (2008); and Maloney & Porcelli's restaurant's "Expense-a-Steak" online fake-receipt generator (2009).

One of my favorites in 25 years was a 1993 print ad for American Standard bath hardware, which subtly anthropomorphized things such as faucet handles by announcing, "They've seen you naked. They've heard you sing."

Another, unfortunately, was a 1997 TV spot for a Spanish skin moisturizer called Esencial. It depicted a pretty woman bicycling down a country lane when her chain began to squeak. So she took some of her Esencial, daubed it on the chain and resumed riding. But the chain still squeaked, because Esencial is "Never greasy." Amazing: a demonstration of product non-attributes. I gave the spot four stars and lobbied heavily for it to win the Cannes Grand Prix.

HONDA: Garfield calls the 'Grr' spot 'a masterpiece.'

And it might have, had it been a real ad for a real product. But it was a ghost. A fake. A fraud.

Oy vey.

Bum calls
Of course, at least I was correct about the fake ad's real genius. About a dozen times over the years I have been simply, horribly wrong: 1) dumping on the original "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" campaign (2003) and the McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It" campaign (2003); 2) Lavishing praise on an obnoxious Australian-rules Energizer pitchman named Jacko (1987), when we should have called for his deportation, and awarding 3 � stars to a quirky Reebok campaign titled UBU (1989), which focused on eccentricity instead of sneakers, infuriated the trade and lasted about five minutes; 3) damning with faint, 2�-star praise the original Saturn "A different kind of company" campaign (1990) and Nike's "Just Do It," -- 3 stars -- which we found a trifle harsh (1988).

Yeah, since then it has harshly become one of the three greatest campaigns in advertising history.

I also kind of regret being the only person in America who kind of liked McDonald's roll-out of the Arch Deluxe (1996). And I'll never live down the most quoted line in AdReview history, my description of the late Dave Thomas, in his debut as Wendy's spokes-founder, as "a steer in a half-sleeve shirt" (1989). The part about him being a theoretically perfect frontman for the square, old-fashioned burgers, that I had right. The part about the clunky writing and halting delivery in the first spots I also can defend. What I cannot defend is the meanness, the snideness, the cheapness of the ad hominem. I broke the Walter Kerr rule, and the shame still burns.

On the other hand, I harbor no regrets whatsoever for eviscerating the most repugnant advertisers of my tenure: Benetton, for ostentatiously exploiting disease, war, religion and the victims of social injustice to push pricey mix 'n' match separates; Calvin Klein, arsonist, for using increasingly aggressive sexual images to ignite outrage, knowing that the media engines and ladders would inevitably race to the scene; GoDaddy, for trafficking in the most puerile and degrading T&A; Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, for smears of the ugliest kind (2004); Camel and Kool (1991), the lowest of the tobacco-marketing low, for using cartoon characters to cultivate children; Nintendo (1994), for telling adolescents to "hock a loogie at life"; and General Motors, for 1) jumping on the gruesome tragedy of 9/11 to sell Chevys and Pontiacs with its perverse "Keep America Rolling" 3,000-dead sale-a-bration (2001), and 2) having the gall on Earth Day, after decades of lobbying against emissions and mileage standards, to celebrate "environmental progress" (1990).

This, I said, was akin to "John Wayne Gacy celebrating the International Year of the Child."

The AdReview staff was proud of that one.

royal of advertising

Royal we
Oh, yeah. Perhaps you've noticed that I always referred to myself as "AdReview" or "the AdReview staff" and employed the "editorial we" -- also known as the "royal we" -- to lend an air of pomposity, arrogance and self-regard. "AdReview" was a windbag. My inspiration was the great alt-weekly columnist Cecil Adams (n�e Ed Zotti), who understood the best way not to be dismissed as an obnoxious know-it-all is to be a caricature of the obnoxious know-it-all. My AdReview persona was seldom me; it was usually 120% of me -- a fact apparently lost on many, many readers. Still, I maintained the artifice for 25 years, owing in part to habit, stubbornness and the personal satisfaction of an extended conceptual joke. AdReview is a bit of a dick, but he's 20% dickier than I am.

My other journalistic inspiration was Walter Kerr, the late, great lead drama critic of The New York Times. Kerr understood that caustic wit was crucial in maintaining his own audience, but not paramount. What is paramount is being an honest broker of your own judgments, and never succumbing to the temptation of skewing negative for the sake of a cheap punchline. If you wish to see what happens when this principle is ignored, spend five minutes reading the ad blogs or Gawker. They are intermittently amusing, deliberately mean and ethically bankrupt.

Intellectual honesty also means never pandering to the tastes or expectations of the audience. At Cannes, especially, where there is so much appreciation for gratuitous novelty, shattered taboos and post-modern irony (i.e., the standards that so often put agencies so structurally at odds with the interests of their clients), it's easy amid the chummy and boozy atmosphere for an on-location critic to go native. But if a Gold Lion winner is really a golden calf, someone has to speak up. This can make for quite the buzz-kill on the Carlton terrace.

DOVE: The 'Evolution' campaign got high marks.

On the other hand, one of the myths surrounding AdReview over the years is that I don't like anything, I dump on everything, I have not a kind word to say about anything. Recently, for instance, some online commenter named Pete wrote, "Bob Garfield is an idiot. He's a glass-half-empty douche-bag." Not true. If anything, I am a glass-half-full douche-bag. Over the years, the average AdReview star rating has been approximately 2.6 stars on a scale of zero to four -- which falls somewhere between "mediocre" and "good." Surely a random sample of 1,200 ads from this time period would not generate anywhere near that high an average. This reflects my endless quest to honor great work with the praise and recognition it deserves. Not easy. In fact, far from stacking the deck in an un-Walter Kerr way to be meanly funny, I've stacked the deck so as not to inflict, week after week, a merciless drubbing.

Not that I claim to be especially sensitive to the feelings of the creative community (although, by policy, in a negative review I don't name individual names). It's just that a weekly pan parade would quickly have been dismissed as juvenile and irrelevant -- just as a hit parade would have been dismissed as Pollyanna and irrelevant.

what advertising ?

Tastelessness
But the most memorable were For Eyes optical (1994) and the Just for Feet chain of athletic shoes. In both those cases (and no other), I called the agencies before my column ran to advise them to pull the ads before they saw the light of day. A humanitarian gesture, you might say.

Both campaigns were mind-bogglingly offensive. For Eyes tried -- well-meaningly and tone-deafly -- to combine social messaging about homelessness with a two-pairs-for-the-price-of-one pitch. Just for Feet depicted a Kenyan runner being tracked by white mercenaries in a Humvee, then caught, drugged and shod in sneakers against his will. It was a Super Bowl spot -- the worst one ever.

BUDWEISER: 'Whassup!' Garfield gave it the thumbs up. The phrase became a cultural phenomenon in 2000.

For Eyes was forced to immediately pull its ads, and soon fired its agency. Just for Feet was crucified in the press, whereupon it sued its agency for malpractice and spiraled into insolvency. I didn't cause these reactions, but I sure as hell saw them coming. Now see, this is kind of a difficult point to make without coming of as an imperious, self-congratulatory windbag -- but in defense of my life's work, I'm obliged to remind my own critics that campaigns praised in the column overwhelmingly had longevity. Campaigns raked over the coals overwhelmingly were short-lived. Just sayin' is all.

The most short-lived of all was a massive global effort from Coca-Cola Co. to switch its theme from the majestic "Always" to the putatively more competitive-minded "Always and Only." I went ape, excoriating Coke for gilding the lily -- and diluting the purity -- of perhaps its most powerful slogan ever. I made my case persuasively enough that when Sergio Zyman, Coca-Cola's global marketing czar, read my column Monday morning he immediately cancelled the change.

Chalk one up for the AdReview staff.