30 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
30 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

How do they not catch these things?...

by TimothyW
24 replies
AARP auto insurance TV commercial:

"$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to the AARP
Auto Insurance Program from The Hartford."

Seems a little ambiguous to use the phrase "switch to," then the word "from"
in that sentence.

No?

-- TW
#catch #things
  • Profile picture of the author Alex Cohen
    Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

    AARP auto insurance TV commercial:

    "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to the AARP
    Auto Insurance Program from The Hartford."

    Seems a little ambiguous to use the phrase "switch to," then the word "from"
    in that sentence.

    No?

    -- TW
    "from The Hartford" is the only thing ambiguous in the sentence.

    Nothing wrong with the word "switch". Better mental imagery than "change".

    Alex
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9996735].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
      Originally Posted by Alex Cohen View Post

      "from The Hartford" is the only thing ambiguous in the sentence.

      Nothing wrong with the word "switch". Better mental imagery than "change".

      Alex
      The word switch is what *makes* the other phrase ambiguous.

      -- TW
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9996979].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alex Cohen
        Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

        The word switch is what *makes* the other phrase ambiguous.

        -- TW
        What makes the other phrase ambiguous is where it's placed.

        It's the copywriter's job to produce copy that's instantly understandable. If a reader has to stop and figure out what the sentence means, the copy loses it's effectiveness.

        If the sentence had been written like this, it wouldn't be ambiguous...
        "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to The Hartford's AARP Auto Insurance Program."
        The word "switch" can be used and no worries about "from" or "with" clauses.

        Alex
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997112].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
          Originally Posted by Alex Cohen View Post

          What makes the other phrase ambiguous is where it's placed.

          It's the copywriter's job to produce copy that's instantly understandable. If a reader has to stop and figure out what the sentence means, the copy loses it's effectiveness.

          If the sentence had been written like this, it wouldn't be ambiguous...
          "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to The Hartford's AARP Auto Insurance Program."
          Alex
          That's closer. I think the true biz arrangement would be better reflected if it were like this...

          "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to AARP's The Hartford Auto Insurance Program."

          But then the "The" in "The Hartford" makes it awkward sounding.
          Unfortunately, the company is called, The Hartford.

          -- TW
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997117].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alex Cohen
            Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

            That's closer. I think the true biz arrangement would be better reflected if it were like this...

            "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to AARP's The Hartford Auto Insurance Program."

            But then the "The" in "The Hartford" makes it awkward sounding.
            Unfortunately, the company is called, The Hartford.

            -- TW
            Good to see you're no longer throwing out the word "switch". That was your original inclination.

            Alex
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997154].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    The phrase looks right to me. How would you word it?
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9996764].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    The sentence is supposed to be about what happens when people switch *from* what they had before *to* a policy *with* The Hartford -- NOT what happens when people switch *to* something, (away) *from* The Hartford.

    That's why my OP. --- "Here's what happens when people switch TO [a name] FROM [another name]." --- As it is now, it's muddy. Maybe replace "from" with "with"?

    -- TW
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9996976].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chillheart
    Maybe going from this...

    "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to the AARP Auto Insurance Program from The Hartford."
    To this...

    "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch from The Hartford to the AARP Auto Insurance Program."
    ...Would be better?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997013].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author angiecolee
    I don't get what you're saying.

    You say it's an AARP commercial. I don't think the last part is ambiguous unless the AARP Insurance is OFFERED BY The Hartford.

    The implication is switching from The Hartford to AARP saves $404.

    If it's offered by, that's where the confusion lies.

    And the short answer: not everyone believes in ponying up for an experienced copywriter or screenwriter for these things. They tend to find out the hard way that every word is chosen carefully.
    Signature

    Aspiring copywriters: if you need 1:1 advice from an experienced copy chief, head over to my Phone a Friend page.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997050].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
    Maybe going from this...

    Quote: "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch to the AARP Auto Insurance Program from The Hartford."
    To this...

    Quote: "$404 is the average amount folks save when they switch from The Hartford to the AARP Auto Insurance Program."


    ...Would be better?

    ___________________



    No. That would make it worse! See above posts!

    -- TW
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997077].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    I get it now, and you are right. That is confusing.

    I thought it was comparing AARP's rates to that of The Hartford.
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997123].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
      Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

      I get it now, and you are right. That is confusing.

      I thought it was comparing AARP's rates to that of The Hartford.
      Aha!

      [relief]

      -- TW

      PS: This PS is only because WF says this post is too short otherwise.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997177].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author chillheart
        Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

        I get it now, and you are right. That is confusing.

        I thought it was comparing AARP's rates to that of The Hartford.
        Originally Posted by TimothyW View Post

        Aha!

        [relief]

        -- TW

        PS: This PS is only because WF says this post is too short otherwise.
        Giving this thread a second look. All I have to say is--

        Ohhhhh, okay.

        Yeah, that IS confusing.

        AARP made it seem like it's two different companies. WTF.

        Good catch, Timothy.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997388].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dmaster555
    It makes sense if you pay attention to the whole thing rather than just that one line .

    The commercial makes it clear they they are advertising aarp from the Hartford. They are working together with the Hartford .

    The program is from the Hartford. And the name of the program is aarp from the Hartford .

    Not very confusing at all.

    They actually mention what the Hartford is multiple time too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997818].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Memetics
      Who would have thought the word "from" could engender such confusion in such a short piece?

      That's the problem with homonyms, their correct meaning in a piece of copy has to be deduced by the context in which they're used. In this case the meanings (both propositions) are very easily mixed up.

      "from" : Removal or separation, as in space, time etc "from The Hartford" who used to have the customer. And....

      "from" : Source or ownership. "from The Hartford" who own the policy.

      Given the word "from" has equal merit in both of its meanings then the word is ambiguous in this context.

      If the reader or viewer doesn't understand the piece then it's the writer who is to blame.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997891].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DABK
        I wonder what The Hartford thinks of this?

        If I were them, I'd be pissed off, no matter how it was said: The AARP's making them pay 2 times to get a client.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9998094].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
        Originally Posted by Memetics View Post

        Who would have thought the word "from" could engender such confusion in such a short piece?

        That's the problem with homonyms, their correct meaning in a piece of copy has to be deduced by the context in which they're used. In this case the meanings (both propositions) are very easily mixed up.

        "from" : Removal or separation, as in space, time etc "from The Hartford" who used to have the customer. And....

        "from" : Source or ownership. "from The Hartford" who own the policy.

        Given the word "from" has equal merit in both of its meanings then the word is ambiguous in this context.

        If the reader or viewer doesn't understand the piece then it's the writer who is to blame.

        WELL SAID!! Thanks!

        Also, I LIKE your sig! Whose saying is that? Yours?
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9998229].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Memetics
          Thanks. The sig is a paraphrase from the Dutch seventeenth-century philosopher Benedict de Spinoza. He proposed the theory that on encountering new information; first we believe the information (in our case copy) and then appraise and consider it.

          In other words: The views we espouse (a conversion in our case) are not the views we have reasoned ourselves towards but instead are the views we have been unable to reason away from.

          The Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert did a study on the idea where two groups of students were given the details of a robbery and then each given different character references afterwards, one good, one bad, but clearly told before the experiment that both references were completely false.

          However, just after reading the references the students were distracted by being told to complete a counting exercise, then afterwards asked to think of a suitable prison sentence for the felon.

          The result? Mr Nasty got on average 11.2 years and Mr Nice 5.8 years. Quite a disparity considering they all knew they were reading false references from the outset.

          The reason it happened was because the counting task distracted their brain from the unbelieving part of the equation. The original belief just stayed as it was.

          Think of it as the brain's appraisal buffer being overloaded and having to fastrack pending information without due process so it can deal with new information on its way.

          In copy our distractions are flow (so much easier just to slide down the sales funnel without exerting all the valuable brain glucose) and emotion as emotions are shortcuts evolved through the ages to protect us (and our genes) from harm: They're meant to distract you.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9998387].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimothyW
            Originally Posted by Memetics View Post

            Thanks. The sig is a paraphrase from the Dutch seventeenth-century philosopher Benedict de Spinoza. He proposed the theory that on encountering new information; first we believe the information (in our case copy) and then appraise and consider it.

            In other words: The views we espouse (a conversion in our case) are not the views we have reasoned ourselves towards but instead are the views we have been unable to reason away from.

            The Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert did a study on the idea where two groups of students were given the details of a robbery and then each given different character references afterwards, one good, one bad, but clearly told before the experiment that both references were completely false.

            However, just after reading the references the students were distracted by being told to complete a counting exercise, then afterwards asked to think of a suitable prison sentence for the felon.

            The result? Mr Nasty got on average 11.2 years and Mr Nice 5.8 years. Quite a disparity considering they all knew they were reading false references from the outset.

            The reason it happened was because the counting task distracted their brain from the unbelieving part of the equation. The original belief just stayed as it was.

            Think of it as the brain's appraisal buffer being overloaded and having to fastrack pending information without due process so it can deal with new information on its way.

            In copy our distractions are flow (so much easier just to slide down the sales funnel without exerting all the valuable brain glucose) and emotion as emotions are shortcuts evolved through the ages to protect us (and our genes) from harm: They're meant to distract you.
            Thanks.

            I'll have to read that over quite a few times so I'll catch on + absorb it.

            -- TW
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9998513].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Copywriting Engineer
    Im pretty sure the voice tone says it or makes it clear what they are representing. We would have to see the commercial though.


    When you stare at something to long it looks messy.


    But you may have a point there. If you don't see it correctly right off the bat without overthinking, and other people don't see it right. Then they still have some work to do.


    You should post the commercial though.


    I grew up thinking "Why cant the commercial say it this way...why does it have to be all complicated"


    I notice a lot off commercials talk on slang level that bumps into your current reality.


    That mountain dew commercial with the scooba man dancing is F$#king tight!!! It makes me laugh every time.


    Then there is the commercial where the guy stares at you and says "Lets have a staring contest" Then he eyeballs you. Its pretty engaging and smart.


    Its on my level. That's what these corp people need to be focusing on.
    Signature

    Bring In More Cash For Your Business With High Caliber Copy
    www.highcalibercopy.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9997859].message }}

Trending Topics