Lowe's switches to a new voice

Tucked into a recent New York Times article on Lowe's new advertising campaign was a morsel that TV viewers and radio listeners with a savvy ear might have picked up on lately, too: Oscar-winning actor Gene Hackman is no longer "the voice of Lowe's." His deep, reassuring, weathered tones had served that role since 2001, in recognizable fashion - and that familiarity proved a bit of an issue when it came to the new ads, which are meant to promote the Mooresville-based home improvement chain's customer service. They feature actors playing Lowe's employees and focus on the ways that Lowe's can help customers.

Says the Times:

The prominent role for employees in the campaign is among several changes by the brand’s creative agency, BBDO New York. Others include replacing the actor Gene Hackman as the voice-over announcer for TV and radio commercials and adding the word “experience” to the longtime theme, “Lowe’s. Let’s build something together.”

The new theme becomes “Experience. Lowe’s. Let’s build something together.” Or maybe it is “Experience Lowe’s. Let’s build something together.” Depending on your ear, it sounds as if Mr. Hackman’s successor, an actor named Ben Yannette, says the slogan both ways.

Tom Lamb, Lowe's senior vice president for marketing and advertising, praised Hackman's work and said that he has been "incredible for our brand" - but noted the company wanted a more plain-spoken, less recognizable voice to fit the campaign.

"It's more reality-based, and we wanted to highlight our employees as heroes in the spots," spokeswoman Laurie Buckelew said. It's unclear if or when the sounds of Hackman will return, she said: "We can't speculate about the voiceover we may use in the future."

The good, the grating and the Gap: What's your take on this year's holiday TV ads?

Though I say this at the risk of sounding extremely dorky, I've always loved Christmas commercials. I'm sure that's at least partially because of the warm 'n' cozy image of happy family time so many portray – and the fact that the ads herald one of my favorite seasons, and one that sticks around only for a limited time.

That said: If I lived to be 100 and never saw another Kay Jewelers commercial, I would be positively exultant. Who knew there were so many different ways to be tooth-rottingly sappy, and with a holiday theme, no less? This year, though, they've definitely got company on the Bad List. The chief offender, at least in my book? The Gap ads featuring the world’s most annoying cheerleading team and junior cheerleading squad, chanting about plaids and boots to a marching band-inspired soundtrack that makes me wistful for the days when "Hollaback Girl" was still overplayed. And as if seeing it on TV wasn't enough, the retailer has also dispatched an accompanying "cheer squad" and drumline to New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago for street performances throughout the season, traveling in a plaid bus. Alas, there's no Charlotte stop.

Gap has a history of memorable-in-a-good-way TV commercials (i.e.: the 1990s' "Khakis Swing"), so on one hand it's encouraging to see the company return to the airwaves after several years' absence. And the ads do tend to burrow into your consciousness in a way that gets you thinking about the Gap, at least momentarily – which for many people is something that hasn't happened in a long time. So maybe that’s a plus for the company. But I'm not sure they're going to fill me with the urge to go out and immediately purchase a plaid shirt (as much as I adore plaid, and believe me, I do).

Apparently, other people don't necessarily agree: The National Retail Federation today released the results of a survey asking shoppers about their favorite Christmas ads this year, and the Gap came in fourth, behind Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy. I'm not sure if that speaks to the commercials' effectiveness or simply the fact that people remembered seeing them, but perhaps those areas overlap. The rest of the list, by the way: Macy's (5), Old Navy (6), Kmart (7), Sears (8), Hallmark (9) and Kohl's (10). No word on where Kay Jewelers landed.

So, tell me: Any other holiday offenders you’d like to nominate?

AT&T's Luke Wilson ads: An irritant even an iPhone app can't solve?

After deciding last night that I'd seen the AT&T commercials starring Luke Wilson one too many times, I resolved to roll in today and dash off an exasperated post. Does the cell carrier really think that consumers are too stupid to realize that Verizon is criticizing AT&T's 3G network specifically, not its overall coverage, in its "We've Got A Map For That" campaign*? And if not, then why is AT&T airing ads in which Wilson talks about how AT&T covers 97 percent of the country with its regular network - which not only doesn't counter Verizon's claim, but could also be seen as confirming it, in a way?

Anyway, about that post: It turns out I didn't need to go ahead and write the rest of it, because several observers at Slate were wondering the same thing, too, as the battle to win smartphone customers continues to rage. To wit, Seth Stevenson's take on the Wilson-starring ads, and Farhad Manjoo's look at the applicability of Verizon's and AT&T's claims in general.

For the record, I have to agree with Stevenson: I much preferred Wilson as Richie Tenenbaum, or in "Legally Blonde."


*An iPhone-owning conspiracy theorist I know, by the way, suggests that Verizon might in fact be trying to appeal to Apple executives with its campaign, so they'll be willing to ditch AT&T once its iPhone exclusivity agreement expires - something that analysts expect to happen sometime next year.