Originally Posted by alhedges

I think this is generally true. While I think that the ad came off as being insulting to bikers, I don't think that was their intent; I think they wanted to actually appeal to cyclists. Cyclists are their natural clientele - people who own cars are not. But the ad backfired due to a tin ear and/or an incompetent ad agency.

Off the top of my head, the ad would have been better if you had two cool looking cyclists (maybe the same ones, just not looking dorky) in front of a giant IKEA. Underneath would be written "Most of the time, you don't need a car. But when you do, there's Zipcar."

The existing ad fails on at least three levels. First of all, the people on bikes look like dorks. This might be an appropriate strategy if you were *selling* cars to involuntary cyclists...but that's not what Zipcar does. Zipcar rents cars to people - many of them cyclists - who only need a car occasionally. Since these are not involuntary cyclists and *are* your potential customers, you make them look cool. You make them look competent. That's basic advertising.

The second problem is that the *reason* these people are supposed to need a Zipcar doesn't make any sense. You don't need a car to carry small items around. No one says, "I need to transport some papers; where can I find a Zipcar?" You need to show the customers in some sort of situation where potential customers might say - yeah, it would be cool to use a Zipcar for *that*. That would encourage people to think of using a Zipcar. No one looking at the ad is going to see themselves in a realistic situation where they might need a Zipcar.

The third problem is the logo. It's probably a fine logo by itself, but in the context of the ad it doesn't work at all. "Sometimes you just need a car." No, that guy needs to put those papers in the briefcase he already has across his top tube. And the woman needs to have some panniers or something for her stuff. Or even a backpack.

I think that Zipcar actually did want to make an ad that appeals to bikers; it's just that they did the opposite.