This commercial was aired in Cairo Egypt. The video features several ads from the campaign. The basic overview is that a person offers someone else cheese, the person says no and then the panda appears. When the panda appears soft inviting music starts to play then the panda becomes violent and starts to destroy things.
The message that this ad is sending is that if you say no to Panda Cheese then Panda will come to hurt you. This message is not appropriate to the product. The product is cheese, it is not something that people can’t live without, making the message seem over the top for the product.
I think the ad is appropriate however, for the target. The target (16-25 year olds) would find these ads funny which is something this audience group looks for in a commercial. Since the panda does unrealistic things to people, making the ad funny, this makes it a very effective ad for the targeted age group. The message is also very effective in instilling fear to the unexpected. If a young child were to see this ad, the child may become afraid because the panda can come out of nowhere to harm you if you don’t purchase the cheese.
This ad, if aired in Canada, would be banned because it uses fear and violence to make a sale. This goes against clauses 10 and 11. In these commercials, Panda comes out of nowhere and destroys property, pulls out an IV, destroys a restaurant’s food, and pushes over a shopping cart. Throughout all the ads, fear is the primary selling point; if you don’t buy the product then something bad will happen to you which plays with people’s safety and fears.
In my personal opinion, when I first saw this series of commercials I thought they were hilarious. Now when I look at the ads, I think the beginning ads should not have been played because of the extreme amount of violence (a sick man gets his IV unplugged) but the later ads are more silly (panda is jumping on food in the shopping cart). I think that if the pizza shop ad and the shopping cart ad could be played during the day, that way the unintended audience might also find it silly and not be scared after watching the commercial. The ad with the office setting could be played at a later time, targeting an older age group when children are less likely to watch this commercial. The hospital ad on the other hand should not be aired at all. I think that playing with fear while someone is in a hospital creates way too much controversy and people would not find it funny."YouTube - Never Say No to Panda!" YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 18 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X21mJh6j9i4>.
As part of the assignment we were to show one of our ads to a person not in the program and ask them their views on an ad. I choose to show this ad to Dan Santos, a 4th year animator at Sheridan College. After showing him this ad, this is what he had to say about it:
ReplyDeleteThe Never Say No to Panda ads are very controversial due to the extreme circumstances needed to push a product, especially if the circumstances would be frowned upon in our culture. However, I think there are a couple of key elements to consider with regards to the target audience.
1. This type of ad can only be considered dangerous and offensive if shown to the wrong demographic. I realize as a 23 year old, I was pleasantly amused and thought for a split second actually buying the cheese. In that sense, it actually works.
2. I think that no matter what, the thought of escaping or shutting down all forms of violence is an impossible feat. Even though there is an intentional fear factor involving the panda, it is impossible to say that one could overlook other hazards even counted each day. Everyone has their own method of dealing with or understanding fear.
The ad itself works, and even if it is in bad taste, it still doesn't detract from the effectiveness of selling the product.