Ever hear of Listerine cold rub?
Neither have I. By now Vick’s has that market well cornered — though it looks as though Lambert wanted in on the action in ’32.
Their angle seems to be that the Listerine rub is “stainless” — it won’t leave any nasty marks on Junior’s bedsheets.1 They’re also proud of the “tidy tube” they’ve packaged it in as opposed to a “messy jar”.
Now this isn’t really a bad product rollout. They’ve got a couple of points in their favor (easier cleanup, easier and neater application), and they suggest that their product is superior in its efficacy. However, I wonder if everyone at Lambert was really behind this offering — after all, it doesn’t exist any more — and the opening line in the ad is interesting. Halting, tentative almost.
Your common sense tells you that in these times we would not dare bring out a new product unless its superiority were so marked as to win people immediately.
Context: 1932. United states.
Great Depression.
Someone at Lambert’s marketing firm actually used the Great Depression as a promotional tool, doing his (or her) damndest to leverage the best out of an awful situation.
Even if the product wasn’t as good as Lambert claimed, you have to admire the chutzpah.
====
1. Well, he says the marks must be coming from the Vick’s, and why would he lie?
10:05 on October 19th, 2008
they suggest that their product is superior in its efficacy.
Heh. Depression Era advertising guilt aside, in 1932 any ol’ medication — from stuff as benign as Listerine to some very nasty concoctions — did not have to show efficacy or even pass safety tests. They had to be labeled properly and shown not to be adulterated with bull piss or whatever, but otherwise, wheeeeee! No regulation!
14:30 on October 20th, 2008
Ah yes, the good old days.