Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why are there Boeing commercials on TV?

This is topic Why are there Boeing commercials on TV? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005000

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-15-2007, 09:17 PM:

I am a little puzzled by that. Sometimes, on the travel channel, and maybe on others, too, they have Boeing commercials in which you see a lot of really nice and happy people work and smile really hard to make better planes - very obviously cast so that more or less every ethnic group is represented, which makes them look extremely fake and pseudo-PC - and why are there no cavemen represented? Because they are *not smart*?

Anyway, while I can theoretically see that some people actually pick up the phone in the middle of the night and order the samurai steak knife set or the blender which even blends chicken wings (with bones) and celery sticks into a powerful and refreshing drink, who is going to get on the phone at 3am in the morning and order an airplane out of boredom, apart from oil sheiks and software billionaires?

Besides, if I spontaneously decide to get myself an airplane, I will buy an Airbus, if only to piss off Mark G.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 03-15-2007, 10:16 PM:

There can be several reasons. Remember that the airline executive watches tv just like a real person. Those ads can make a shareholder feel warm and fuzzy inside and one point in the market can pay for the ads.

It is good to show mere mortals that the maker is ensuring that planes won’t fall out of the sky.

Sometimes advertisers choose not to direct-market.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-15-2007, 10:23 PM:

Ok Michael... you primed me!

Rich folks travel alot... Its all about selling stock in Boeing.... There is no reason that Airbus couldn't do the same thing... in thinking stock they are actually foolish not to... at least if Airbus is a traded company and at all competetive... Or are they just another weak government supported entity(like NASA) who's plug could be pulled at any moment? Also... the Boeing plane certainly sets far more precedence(than the size of the Airbus)since its airframe is 100% built from composite materials and is far more efficient. Now watch after the 787 sells a bunch...oops it already has... Not that I don't admire the awe of the new Airbus but to me the Airbus is more of a curiosity... like a large flying Concorde... Now the boys at Boeing are very smart... they don't want customers to shy away from buying the 787 because of the back up of orders... with the total of over 470 orders for the 787 there is talk about beginning consruction of a second assembly line at the Everett Plant so no one has an undue long wait for one. Apparently even the large European operators don't believe in Airbus since it is ineresting to note that your own Lufthansa airlines guaranteed another 20 years of flying for the 747 in 12/06 with an order for 20 of the new 747-8 planes and an option for 20 more. What's bad for Airbus is that the 747's presence in commercial flight for another 20 years means the A380 won't be the future of the industry. The 787 Dreamliner and now a refreshed "Queen of the Skies" have taken that over making Boeing's stock a very good investment.

Mark

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 03-16-2007, 08:24 AM:

I'm with Mike on this one...WTF????? Did the commercial actually market it for sale, such as a car ad? If I was a pilot, I would already know about the different manufacturers. If I was rich, I would tell "my people" to go buy me a plane that my pilot is comfortable with. If I was an investor in Boeing, I would be pissed off that Boeing was spending millions on a stupid commercial instead of giving me my share.

I've flown on hundreds of flights, and I never notice what make of plane I am on. Same as when I take a cab or rent a car. Will it get me from point A to point B? O.K., I'll take it.

Rick

P.S. Ron, you look like that guy from M.A.S.H. [Smile]

P.S.S.

quote: Michael Schaffer
and why are there no cavemen represented? Because they are *not smart*?

Hey are you callin Mark "not smart"?

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 03-16-2007, 09:01 AM:

Its probably also to generate awareness of the brand by the general public.

If someone is booking a flight, and has a choice between say a Boeing 737 and a Airbus 319, if they have brand awareness they are more likely to book the Boeing flight.

The better the occupancy of a Boeing flight = the airline purchasing more Boeing planes.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 03-16-2007, 09:32 AM:

Sorry Jason, When I call my travel agent, I don't ask what brand of plane I will be on. I suggest airlines, only because of skymile status.

Rick

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-16-2007, 11:56 AM:

There are many people who do ask what "equipment" will be used on a given flight segment and make their choices accordingly. One example - a friend of mine refuses to ride on narrower aircraft like MD-80s or BAe-146s (or the RJ equivalents) or in the old days any Metroliner commuter, due to the cramped interiors on these planes. He definitely follows the adage, "If it ain't a Boeing I ain't going." Don't know what he thinks of Airbus.

Airlines do gauge customer opinion regarding aircraft choices and Boeing knows this. So Boeing gets its name out there in the public mind through TV and print ads. I suppose it's something like the prescription medication ads that are everywhere these days. Get the brand name out there and people will ask their doctors about it by name.

As for me I'll ride or fly anything that flies. Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, Convair, Bombardier, Swearingen, Fairchild, BAe, Shorts, Saab, Casa, Embraer, NAMC, Sukhoi, Tupolev, Harbin, Xian, it doesn't matter as long as it flies. [Smile]

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 03-16-2007, 12:16 PM:

Paul,
Maybe so, I just find it odd, I have never asked what I am flying on. My old boss at Kerasotes is a pilot, and we flew the Comanche on short trips and the twin on the longer trips, but I never paid attention to the brand.

My only concern when I fly is will I get a bulkhead, exit, or isle seat. First class if I'm lucky!!! [thumbsup]

Rick

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-16-2007, 12:34 PM:

I don't know about the TV ads, but I do know that Boeing and Lockheed (and other large government contractors) are major advertisers in the Washington Post (newspaper). I suspect that this is an attempt to influence those who are involved with the awarding of government/military contracts. Obviously, the average reader of the Washington Post isn't going to go out and buy a 787, but presumably the costs of the ads are small when compared with the potential value of a new contract. Do the ads work? I doubt it, but someone at Boeing obviously disagrees.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-16-2007, 12:44 PM:

Same thing applies to BASF. I think both cases are just awareness for people to buy stock.

As far as flying, I am more apt to choose a particular flight based on seating configuration than the aircraft (although the aircraft plays into the configuration). When possible, if traveling with my wife I try to get flights on regional jets, MD-80, 767, 777 (on airlines that do 2-5-2 seating), A300, A330 or A340 so that we can get window and aisle and have our own row.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-16-2007, 01:44 PM:

Michael Schaffer wrote

quote: Michael Schaffer
why are there no cavemen represented? Because they are *not smart*?

Shouldn't that read *cerebrally challenged* ? [Wink]

As for Airbus, Boeing has not much to worry about these days. The suits in France and Germany forgot to use their brains and listen to advice how to build airplanes with sensible logistics, now they are going to fire thousands of workers to make up for their incompetence.

Airbus protests /Times of Malta)
BBC Job Fears Trigger Airbus Protests

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-16-2007, 03:44 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
why are there no cavemen represented? Because they are *not smart*?

The caveman is represented in some commercials from Geico.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-16-2007, 05:00 PM:

Adam - First of all, I am not 100% in love with your tone right now. That was actually what I was referring to ("duh!").

Christian - you are probably not familiar with these commercials which everybody in the US knows:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=geico+caveman&search=Search
See "at the therapist". But the other ones are funny, too.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-16-2007, 05:21 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
Adam - First of all, I am not 100% in love with your tone right now.

Michael, you failed to take in consideration that Adam is such a BRUTE!

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-16-2007, 06:27 PM:

I was quoting again (see the clips linked to above).

Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 03-16-2007, 10:03 PM:

It may well be that these commercials are local cable company drop-ins - like the ads for your local sushi bar in the middle of some show on the Sci-Fi Channel. If people making airplane buying decisions are heavily represented there in San Diego, it might be so.

I know here in DC, the Sunday morning "talking heads" ("Meet the Press," etc.) that nobody outside the beltway watches, are loaded with ads for fighter plane manufacturers. "Honey, get me some bread and milk, and stop by Northrop-Grumman for a couple of jets, please."

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 03-17-2007, 04:15 AM:

Call me paranoid, but here's my theory:

Many non-consumer companies like to advertise on the mass media. I think this buys them security and popularity in the eyes of the people exposed to this media.

If there's ever any dirty laundry that might be aired and damage this corporation's reputation, it probably won't be aired on the media networks that carry their advertisements.

I'm guessing that "company X" pays CNN a large sum to advertise on their network. So I would think that CNN may choose to omit information regarding something bad happening at "company X" for fear of biting the hand that feeds them.

I know, I know..... [uhoh]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-17-2007, 05:44 AM:

These are so-called "positioning" ads. They are not aimed at a particular group; just awareness. Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-17-2007, 09:56 AM:

quote: Adam Martin
The caveman is represented in some commercials from Geico.

Yea... go figure... I have GEICO insurance... they can produce expensive series of commercials and they still have the lowest rates in Utah.

Mark

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 03-17-2007, 01:01 PM:

quote: Wayne Keyser
I know here in DC, the Sunday morning "talking heads" ("Meet the Press," etc.) that nobody outside the beltway watches, are loaded with ads for fighter plane manufacturers.

Actually, "Meet the Press" is one of my favorite Sunday talk shows that I often watch WITH my children. Since I only have basic cable, its a balance to the hours of talk radio that we listen to.

Interestingly enough, however, I've thought about this myself. I guess great minds think alike, Michael. In truth, I'm not very pleased with the Boeing ad or the GE ad with the animals standing on top of each other for that matter. But I do Think Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) has done some good stuff.

[ 03-17-2007, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Aaron Mehocic ]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-17-2007, 02:16 PM:

If planemakers want to sell planes direct to the public, they need to highlight the benefits for the passenger.

I visit the US (on average) twice a year. From my local airport there are two options: Shitish Airways (oops, Freudian slip!) via Heathrow, or KLM/Northwest via Amsterdam. Because transferring through Heathrow when you need to change terminals is a hideous nightmare, I started with the KLM/Northwest route and have stuck to it - largely because of the ease of transferring through Amsterdam and Northwest's superb customer service.

The one drawback with Northwest was the ancient DC-10s they had on the transatlantic leg. Sure, they had Austin Powers-style retro charm: but the cabin air was stale, they were very noisy, the vibration gave me a backache after an Amsterdam to Minneapolis or Memphis flight and because they were near the end of their service life, minor problems weren't being repaired (for example, on one flight neither the reading light nor the headphones worked). But I stuck with NW because the staff were friendly and efficient and the food was above average for economy class. In the event of a delay or connection problem, the people at the transfer desk will go the extra mile to get you to your destination. One even offered to phone the person who was meeting me off a flight at Austin to let her know that I'd be late. She was as good as her word. So I figured that it was worth putting up with the DC-10s for an otherwise excellent service.

Last year, the DC-10s were replaced with Airbus A330s. What a difference! The cabin is so quiet it's spooky. Cool, fresh air circulated throughout the flight, and I can't feel any vibration during the cruise. I even managed to sleep on an overnight Minneapolis-Amsterdam last year, and in economy class that ain't easy. The result? If I was taking a long-haul trip somewhere KLM/NW didn't go and I was weighing up which airline to book with, I'd look to see what planes they use and if it was a choice between an A330 and a plane I'd never been on, the A330 would do a lot to convince me to book that option.

So, if Boeing and Airbus produced TV ads which stress that their planes are tolerable places to sit in for an 8-10 hour flight, that would get my attention. Idealised images of a happy workforce ... that's nice, but it wouldn't persuade me to part with £500 or so for a flight on their plane.

Posted by David Graves (Member # 4069) on 03-20-2007, 11:59 AM:

It's the same reason why you watch CNN and see commercials for a company that makes oil rigs. It's got nothing to do with consumer marketing- who's going to see a 30 second spot and say "ooh, I'll go with them for my oil rig?"

Hate to say it, but it's a way for companies to essentially buy favorable coverage from major networks. You can't just write a check for it, so instead, you buy some airtime at very high rates. I won't go further so as not to violate the no-politics rule, but you see where this is heading.