Counter points: 1) Most obvious commercials are totally forgettable, this one had your attention through out (while you wondered what was up) and then prompted you to write about it. Definitely wins points on getting and holding your attention! 2) As a lottery commercial, they had to walk a fine line between showing someone fulfill their dream and not being completely avaricious. So, enter the million dollar dog toy. 3) Commercials are becoming more about micro-tainment and telling a compelling story with interesting characters in 60 seconds is no mean feat. For example, from the mans age, work clothes, house, and old truck you can imply several things. Perhaps he's a widower, and his dog is his best friend. He “has enough” and doesn't want to spend any more money on himself but wants to do something for someone else – his faithful dog. Perhaps, even, he's not capable of throwing the frisbees as far or as often as he'd like because of his age (arthritis?). See? There's a whole story line buried in that 60 second spot.

Finally, as inobvious as this commercial was, the ads that take the cake in this category are the blue-jeans and the fragrances. There are perfume ads in which, after 60 seconds on random scenes and obscure music, they never actually tell you what their selling. At all. They just end with the name of the fragrance and (I suppose) hope that you figure out what the hell “impassioned!” or “oblivion…” is.

I think you might be being a touch cynical. I happen to think the spot is kind of sweet. Stephen hit on this also, but it's a nice story that actually has a layer or two.

I don't know. It's just me. But I liked it. It's sweet and heartwarming. Nothing something you see out of a lottery commercial very often. At least not down here in California.

I saw this the other night, and recognized it when the vid started. We sat wondering what they were selling, which I guess is the point.
But I didn't remember who made the ad, until reading your description. Maybe I just blocked it because the product has no value to me, but in my case at least, the big cliffhanger ad did not stick very well.

I recognize the micro-tainment trend you mention. The fact that it exists doesn't make it effective or advisable, though. The purpose of an advertisement is not to entertain, but to communicate with potential customers about your business. That’s not to say that advertisements can’t be entertaining, only that the ‘point’ should be communication, not entertainment.

In the case of this particular advertisement, the creators failed the communication test.

See, I don't think the spot did fail. In those 2 seconds you have to catch a viewers attention, this commercial succeeded *because* of the entertainment factor. You were caught up immediately in what was going on, and continued to be caught up untilk the very end. Even you were caught up in this, Ed.

I agree the payoff wasn't for me, as the product doesn't appeal to me, but the ad kept my attention, prevented me from changing the channel and made me stay until the very end. And when I did see what the product was they were selling, the entire spot made perfect sense.

It is risky indeed to provide the communication until the very end, and you must be sure of your message leading up to that point, but this spot did succeed.

To support your point, I occasionally watch a little TV with my fiancee's mother and her aunt. On more then one occasion they watch a television commercial and then look at me and ask “what the hell was that?” They have no idea what is being offered or what the commercial has to do with the item offered. Interestingly enough, it's usually the kind of “too hip to be commercial, ironic in a Gen-X way” ads that throw them. But, the point is valid – if the audience can't figure out what you're selling or end up remembering the commercial but not the product, then the ad probably failed.

On the other, other hand – finding a way to cut through the clutter of commercial ads and reach the audience is not easy. Sometimes the ads holler and scream at us (OXYCLEAN!!!) and sometimes they bombard us with semi-random, but striking images (“Eternity … a fragrance”) and often they just try to make us laugh, because associating positive emotions with their products is also a good way of selling them.

And, that last one is probably what's going on here. How many people saw the commercial and thought of the cute dog and the touching story of an old man building a frisbee thrower for his dog and the scene of them playing on the beach … one positive emotion building on another … so that when the product is finally named, those emotions can be transferred over. Now, you don't feel quite so greedy, desperate, or stupid for wasting money on a lottery ticket – you feel like a kind hearted pet lover with an old pickup truck and a loyal mutt.

Exactly… every effective ad needs to create that emotional connection, and this one did just that.

does anyone know whos doing the music on the wash. state lottery commercial – my dogs best friend?

I wondered about the music, as well! Anybody know?

It's a song by The Cave Singers. It's called “Seeds of night.”

Please, tell me the name of the song that's playing!

See above. it's “Seeds of night” by the Cave Singers.

I think it's a great commercial… it's attention grabbing (which is what most companies, products, etc want to do firstly) and it's sweet at the same time. And it makes sense when you hear the “whose world would you change” line and when you see the lottery logo if you saw ANY of their other commercials within the ad campaign. I still think my favorite is with them flying the birds on hang-gliders that can't fly, like the emu and the chickens and the penguin… with the penguin flappin his little wings.

And besides all of the above, you are also left asking yourself is the actor related to Robert Redford. He's close enough to be his twin and even his voice sounds like Redford. Is he a stand-in for Redford?

nice post

nice post