Honestly, I was shocked by it (as was the rest of my family). Yeah, lots of people are talking about Groupon, but it isn't making me want to use it. I do have to wonder if there is a demographic that Groupon targets ("just give me cheap crap") that views things differently ("what the hell is Tibbet [sic] anyway?").
Being that insensitive to the sufferings of others and trivializing it to some coupon to a fish curry dinner -- well, I can't think of any ad that quite matches it. So yes, this is what causes me to be disappointed in American marketing. And, I try to donate in the capacity that I can (but I cannot always, as I'm a college student who lives on paycheck to paycheck). Thank you for presuming otherwise though.
It's not even insensitive though. It's fully aware of the fact that those issues are significant and deserving of attention. It's much more of a satire on the fact that most Americans express their "outrage" in Facebook posts and "moral outrage" posts on HN rather than taking action or donating. It's mocking the psuedo moral superiority and giving people want they really want in an abrasive, highly discussed manner.
It's good advertising and I don't find it nearly as insulting as everyone here seems to. At the worst, it simply paints a sad satire of American "disaster fatigue" culture.
Also, my snark at the end was not necessarily personally directed at you. I guess I'm just indulging in the sarcastic satire that I feel Groupon is borrowing from - it's easy to be outraged at the trivialization of something "tragic", but is it really hurting anyone or anything?
"The world was shook to it's very foundation the day the World Trade Center buildings were attacked. Heroes fallen, a nation shook; some victims, flames against their back and smoke subsuming them, took a plunge...
... like the falling prices at Bleecker's Appliance on the corner of Warwick and Bushnell, where I just got a killer deal on a refrigerator through Groupon!"
Heh, not really as if I can respond to this without sounding like a jerk and being downvoted incessantly. Oh well, I'll take a shot anyway: my response choices included mentioning that it was a decade ago, pointing out that I laugh (albeit how terrible it may or may not be of me) at this image: http://i.min.us/ibOZze.jpg, and how I think a personal or national tragedy is slightly different than some animals in the water far enough away that I don't actually think about them regularly.
I'd actually be more upset if they ran an ad mocking peoples' opposition to the war... or you know something substantial. I find that the continued SHOCK over 9/11 is really just another symptom of our addiction to "disaster porn" [1]. We in the US love a good disaster, especially if it's a banner under which to assert staunch nationalism (and with it pass the largest violation of Constitutional rights in the history of this country and invade two others), and continue to drum up emotion, support and excuses for ourselves and our government.
Yes it was terrible, yes people died. More people died in automobile accidents. Ask yourself why you're so worked up over 9/11. Was it graphic? Maybe, but that probably has to do with our constant reiteration of what a "tragedy" it was along with footage of the towers falling.
[1]: less "shockingly" known as Compassion Fatigue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) (hm, this article isn't a very good discussion. I'm more familiar with it in the policy debate world where it has a bit more relevant meaning)
"I'd actually be more upset if they ran an ad mocking peoples' opposition to the war... or you know something substantial."
That's the problem. You think it was just about Whales and trees, but I guess you didn't realize how many more died in the Tibetan struggle for independence than 9/11? Then smash cut on Timothy Hutton getting a fish dinner?
I say, if they wanted shock, do the 9/11 thing. Or, even more topical, the egyptian revolution. Like Kenneth Cole did[1]. That worked out well for them!
Why not place a solid call-to-action during the advertisement for people to visit their website and sign-up?
All they said was "visit Groupon.com".
All Groupon needs is your e-mail address and a zip code. It seems like they could have baited people with something and really grown their subscriber base?
Am I crazy for thinking that was a wasted opportunity, or does that not work well with such a massive audience?
Maybe the agency they hired only does branding and couldn't fathom the thought of getting direct responses?
If you go to Groupon.com, the only thing you can do is sign up. One big fat call to action. If you get people to the site, then 90% of the battle is already won.
I think the biggest mistake is that the groupon.com page is plugging to watch Super Bowl commercial and sign up.
If you actually follow through to http://savethemoney.groupon.com/ one can find that there are some serious active campaigns to aid these movements. If you donate $15 to Greenpeace you get $15 in Groupon credit. They're making it way to easy to hate them through this and miss some huge opportunities to help others.
My GOD this is killing me. Apparently just because tech companies are advertising during the superbowl we MUST be in the midst of a tech bubble?
WTF?
Groupon is, by all appearances, STUPIDLY profitable. This isn't pets.com raising millions of dollars and blowing it on an ad and aeron chairs. These are solid companies using the biggest ad day of the year to further cement their status.
I think the article was at least trying to _imply_ that the ads indicate that we are in the midst of a bubble. Otherwise, why would they repeatedly bring up the Super Bowl ads from the last bubble?
It had a great structure in theory, set people up to expect one thing then throw them into an entirely new frame of reference to make the product stand out.
There were two problems, one is that they ran it backwards from high moral ground to low. Secondly, they spent way too long describing Groupon is and what it does which allowed the audience time to recover from the shock and become disgusted. Half the commercial was setup, 3 seconds were punchline and 12 seconds were trying to explain the punchline. If it had been funny, all would have been forgiven.
Besides the fact they probably just ruined their China plans, poking fun at the situation will piss off both sides... one view point.. http://bit.ly/fKegsC
I believe if they would have made it a clear fact that they were directly supporting the groups which they were poking fun at, the ads would not have been so ill-received. You can donate to Greenpeace, The Tibet Fund, Rainforest Action Network and buildOn at Groupon's site and your donation will be matched (with the exception of Greenpeace, for which you receive Groupon credit): http://savethemoney.groupon.com/
It's a bit of a shame that the donation site wasn't promoted at all in the videos, it might have done wonders for the groups on the receiving end.
So if Groupon already has the tech savvy, liberal mom and dad crowd in it's database, might a 'crass' ploy like this hit the remaining demographic? I'm thinking about the people who didn't go to college.
It seems crazy to target them, but really, if you already have the educated elite, and you're advertising on a football game...
If you watched Andrew Mason's talk at Startup School '10, you'll understand the Groupon ads. These ads reflect the history of Groupon itself - Groupon grew out of ThePoint.com (which is still up) - a site dedicated to group activism, and it was going absolutely nowhere. The ads are dead-on - for all the talk about helping Tibet and saving endangered whales, we vote with our dollars in favor of ethnic food and fun excursions.
unfortunately, not every television ad viewer has heard of Andrew Mason being Groupon's CEO .. much less about his startup school talk and his philosophy and what not ..
there's not much sense in defending these ads, whatever the deeper thought may have been .. upon viewing them, they were crass, not humorous and definitely not in the right taste.
This is exactly why these are amazing. He took a group activism site that basically couldn't make anything and turned it into the fastest growing company in the history of the world. They turned down a $6 billion offer and paid for all these superbowl ads.
The real irony here is people's principles don't actually matter. People can't help themselves and will take saving $15 on a dinner millions of times over rather than offering it up to any of their principles or supposedly lofty morals. Mason discovered the real secret here which is it doesn't matter which moral road you're on people can't help themselves.
The reason people think these are crass is that they can't deal with the realization of their own moral corruption and hypocrisy. These commercials are a statement about the same people who are lambasting them. They got trolled and the more they rage the more they out themselves for the ruinous morally crippled savages that they truly are.
Hadn't seen the ads or read the coverage, but had seen headlines and tweets complaining. Had been thinking "How bad could they be?" so I just watched them . . oh crap who thought this was a good idea!
Sure, but I am in the startup space and hear about Groupon every other day so I have a bit of selection bias. Also if it was to create controversy then it negates their response to the uproar.
Contrary to popular slogans, there is in fact such a thing as bad publicity.
I don't think Groupon intended this reaction, I think their ad agency was stupid and Groupon had a blind spot because they knew what they meant to say. As opposed to the message they actually did communicate.
The weird thing is that they didn't even have to do anything edgy at all. They have a good product that people naturally want. All they had to do at this point was explain what they do.
I think they succeeded at getting people to talk about it[Marketing Objective Complete!]. If it makes it onto HackerNews I can only imagine how many times I'm going to have to hear about super bowl commercials in every other website I visit.
I think the height of super bowl ads was Herding Cat's. After that I don't think I could ever be entertained by super bowl commercials anymore.
I think it was a smart move. In a few months no one will know why they know who Groupon is, but they'll absolute recognize the name because they were all pissed about how "insensitive" the commercials were.
I'll absolutely remember them just like I knew about the sock puppet, Whoopi Goldberg, and the... one with the chesty women. Which one was that one again?
Plus it gives them a popular platfrom from which to Learn and Rise and be Cutely Contrite...see? We all now get to watch little Groupon grow up in public. Expect a press conference apology soon, they're not going to waste all this attention!
Groupon was supposedly trying to expand in Red China before this. Maybe they've figured out that no foreign company is going to dominate this market in the PRC and, like Google, they're a little resentful.
Actually, I see a couple Groupon offers in my overseas city every day and there don't seem to be a lot of takers. A lot more of the offers seem to be salons and beauty shops compared to my USA city offers. The restaurant choices are good, though.
Makes me wonder about the international viability of the Groupon model.
I tried Groupon, thinking I'd find out about some local businesses (I travel full-time, so I never have "favorite" places to eat or things to do, and always eager to try new things; I'm possibly the perfect audience for this kind of thing). The second day the deal of the day was for Bed, Bath and Beyond. Now, that is offensive. If I'd wanted to be spammed by multi-national big box retailers I'd...well, I'd never want to be spammed by multi-national big box retailers, so I don't know what I'd do. I guess I would have continued to subscribe to Groupon's service.
In short, I find Groupon offensively attuned to cash at the expense of their users. So, I guess I'm not too bothered by their super bowl blunders. Though, I doubt all that many people were really offended enough to turn down a good deal.
I don't think they see "people who like trying new things" as their target audience so much as "people who like saving money on things". Most people probably prefer a deal like that (or, say, the Living Social Amazon deal) to one for some random local business because more people have a desire to purchase things from Bed, Bath, and Beyond than to purchase from a given random local business.
That could be; and is, perhaps, why they have had such explosive success.
I was under the mistaken impression, based on reading interviews with the founders and seeing the founders speak, that they were interested in bringing interesting local businesses exposure. I may have also been fooled by the description of their product on the website: "Check your email, Facebook or Twitter feeds for daily deals on cool local businesses." It wouldn't have crossed my mind that anyone would ever consider Bed, Bath and Beyond to be a "cool" or "local" business...but, I'm old. WTF do I know about "cool" or "local" (or "business", for that matter, it would seem).
"I'm not an elitist," Green said. "It's just that I'd much
rather sculpt or write in my journal or read Proust than sit
there passively staring at some phosphorescent screen."
I merely feel the service is misrepresented. They claim it is a service for discovering "cool local businesses", and the founders frequently talk about providing a service to local businesses. Bed, Bath, and Beyond is not, by any definition I can imagine, cool or local.
Isn't this the exact coverage Groupon was expecting? I mean, every blog outlet has been predicting "ad backlash" before the commercials aired. Clearly Groupon wants the additional press time (whether positive or not)
92 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadIt's good advertising and I don't find it nearly as insulting as everyone here seems to. At the worst, it simply paints a sad satire of American "disaster fatigue" culture.
Also, my snark at the end was not necessarily personally directed at you. I guess I'm just indulging in the sarcastic satire that I feel Groupon is borrowing from - it's easy to be outraged at the trivialization of something "tragic", but is it really hurting anyone or anything?
"The world was shook to it's very foundation the day the World Trade Center buildings were attacked. Heroes fallen, a nation shook; some victims, flames against their back and smoke subsuming them, took a plunge...
... like the falling prices at Bleecker's Appliance on the corner of Warwick and Bushnell, where I just got a killer deal on a refrigerator through Groupon!"
Oh, right. Fresh wounds and all, right?
I'd actually be more upset if they ran an ad mocking peoples' opposition to the war... or you know something substantial. I find that the continued SHOCK over 9/11 is really just another symptom of our addiction to "disaster porn" [1]. We in the US love a good disaster, especially if it's a banner under which to assert staunch nationalism (and with it pass the largest violation of Constitutional rights in the history of this country and invade two others), and continue to drum up emotion, support and excuses for ourselves and our government.
Yes it was terrible, yes people died. More people died in automobile accidents. Ask yourself why you're so worked up over 9/11. Was it graphic? Maybe, but that probably has to do with our constant reiteration of what a "tragedy" it was along with footage of the towers falling.
[1]: less "shockingly" known as Compassion Fatigue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) (hm, this article isn't a very good discussion. I'm more familiar with it in the policy debate world where it has a bit more relevant meaning)
That's the problem. You think it was just about Whales and trees, but I guess you didn't realize how many more died in the Tibetan struggle for independence than 9/11? Then smash cut on Timothy Hutton getting a fish dinner?
I say, if they wanted shock, do the 9/11 thing. Or, even more topical, the egyptian revolution. Like Kenneth Cole did[1]. That worked out well for them!
[1] http://blog.seattlepi.com/zennieabraham/archives/238287.asp
Why not place a solid call-to-action during the advertisement for people to visit their website and sign-up?
All they said was "visit Groupon.com".
All Groupon needs is your e-mail address and a zip code. It seems like they could have baited people with something and really grown their subscriber base?
Am I crazy for thinking that was a wasted opportunity, or does that not work well with such a massive audience?
Maybe the agency they hired only does branding and couldn't fathom the thought of getting direct responses?
Curious.
As for signing up, the website itself contains that call to action.
If you actually follow through to http://savethemoney.groupon.com/ one can find that there are some serious active campaigns to aid these movements. If you donate $15 to Greenpeace you get $15 in Groupon credit. They're making it way to easy to hate them through this and miss some huge opportunities to help others.
WTF?
Groupon is, by all appearances, STUPIDLY profitable. This isn't pets.com raising millions of dollars and blowing it on an ad and aeron chairs. These are solid companies using the biggest ad day of the year to further cement their status.
The car that reads your facebook statuses indicates a bubble.
There were two problems, one is that they ran it backwards from high moral ground to low. Secondly, they spent way too long describing Groupon is and what it does which allowed the audience time to recover from the shock and become disgusted. Half the commercial was setup, 3 seconds were punchline and 12 seconds were trying to explain the punchline. If it had been funny, all would have been forgiven.
The ad fails on so many levels...
It's a bit of a shame that the donation site wasn't promoted at all in the videos, it might have done wonders for the groups on the receiving end.
It seems crazy to target them, but really, if you already have the educated elite, and you're advertising on a football game...
Anyway, here is the official justification: http://www.groupon.com/blog/cities/groupon-super-bowl-ads/
Might give you some useful perspective before you start forming an opinion.
That's a good thing.
there's not much sense in defending these ads, whatever the deeper thought may have been .. upon viewing them, they were crass, not humorous and definitely not in the right taste.
"for all the talk about helping Tibet and saving endangered whales, we vote with our dollars in favor of ethnic food and fun excursions"
The real irony here is people's principles don't actually matter. People can't help themselves and will take saving $15 on a dinner millions of times over rather than offering it up to any of their principles or supposedly lofty morals. Mason discovered the real secret here which is it doesn't matter which moral road you're on people can't help themselves.
The reason people think these are crass is that they can't deal with the realization of their own moral corruption and hypocrisy. These commercials are a statement about the same people who are lambasting them. They got trolled and the more they rage the more they out themselves for the ruinous morally crippled savages that they truly are.
I don't think Groupon intended this reaction, I think their ad agency was stupid and Groupon had a blind spot because they knew what they meant to say. As opposed to the message they actually did communicate.
The weird thing is that they didn't even have to do anything edgy at all. They have a good product that people naturally want. All they had to do at this point was explain what they do.
I think the height of super bowl ads was Herding Cat's. After that I don't think I could ever be entertained by super bowl commercials anymore.
Actually, I see a couple Groupon offers in my overseas city every day and there don't seem to be a lot of takers. A lot more of the offers seem to be salons and beauty shops compared to my USA city offers. The restaurant choices are good, though.
Makes me wonder about the international viability of the Groupon model.
In short, I find Groupon offensively attuned to cash at the expense of their users. So, I guess I'm not too bothered by their super bowl blunders. Though, I doubt all that many people were really offended enough to turn down a good deal.
I was under the mistaken impression, based on reading interviews with the founders and seeing the founders speak, that they were interested in bringing interesting local businesses exposure. I may have also been fooled by the description of their product on the website: "Check your email, Facebook or Twitter feeds for daily deals on cool local businesses." It wouldn't have crossed my mind that anyone would ever consider Bed, Bath and Beyond to be a "cool" or "local" business...but, I'm old. WTF do I know about "cool" or "local" (or "business", for that matter, it would seem).