• Home
  • Advertising
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Google Products
  • Microsoft BING
  • Online Marketing
  • Random Stuff
  • Search Engine Optimization
  • Social Networks
  • Web Development
  • Website Design

GEICO Poking Fun at Seniors

Advertising May 25, 2012
GEICO Poking Fun at Seniors

GEICO Poking Fun at Seniors: GEICO Insurance Taste Test Campaign

The GEICO “Taste Test” campaign was a humorous advertising initiative launched around 2012. The Martin Agency created it as part of GEICO’s broader strategy to use multiple, memorable campaigns to stand out in the competitive insurance market. The campaign parodied classic taste test commercials, traditionally used by food and beverage brands, by applying the format to car insurance, a product not typically associated with taste or flavor.

Concept and Execution

  • The commercials featured individuals participating in a mock “taste test,” comparing GEICO’s low rates to those of another insurance company, as if they were comparing food or drink products.
  • The humor stemmed from the absurdity of “tasting” insurance rates, with participants reacting as if GEICO’s rates were literally delicious.
  • This approach was designed to make the idea of saving money with GEICO more memorable and engaging by using incongruity and satire.

Advertising Strategy and Impact

  • The campaign targeted a broad audience, with a particular focus on adults aged 25 to 40, a key demographic for insurance purchases.
  • Humor and emotional appeal were central to the campaign, aligning with GEICO’s overall advertising philosophy of using lighthearted, memorable content to promote a typically dull product.
  • According to a content analysis, GEICO’s use of humor in campaigns like “Taste Test” relied heavily on incongruity-resolution and satire, making the ads more likely to be processed peripherally by viewers (i.e., engaging attention through entertainment rather than deep rational argument).
  • While the campaign contributed to GEICO’s brand recognition and revenue growth during its run, it did not achieve the same lasting impact as some of the company’s other campaigns (such as the Gecko or Caveman)Some critics found the “Taste Test” concept confusing or lacking in substance compared to more direct or relatable campaigns.

Reception

  • The campaign received mixed reviews. Some appreciated the playful spoof on familiar advertising tropes, while others felt it was less effective or memorable than GEICO’s more iconic efforts.
  • Despite the mixed critical response, GEICO’s overall advertising strategy, using multiple, concurrent campaigns, has been credited with helping the company gain significant market share and brand recognition over the past two decades.

Summary Table: Key Features of the GEICO Taste Test Campaign

Feature Description
Launch Year 2012
Agency The Martin Agency
Format Parody of classic taste test commercials
Humor Style Incongruity, satire, and absurdity
Target Audience Broad, with a focus on ages 25-40
Reception Mixed; memorable for its oddity, but not as enduring as other GEICO ads
Impact Contributed to brand recognition; less staying power than Gecko/Caveman ads.

Conclusion

The GEICO Taste Test campaign exemplified the brand’s willingness to experiment with unconventional, humorous approaches to insurance advertising. While not as iconic as some of GEICO’s other campaigns, it reinforced the company’s reputation for creative marketing and contributed to its ongoing success in the insurance industry.

# GEICO Poking Fun at Seniors

Also see:
Samsung Poking Fun at Apple iPhone People Standing in Line
Mayflower Moving Company Creepy Commercial
Tone Death Music Producers in Advertising

Share This Post
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Google+
Newer Older

Archives

  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (5)
  • March 2025 (1)
  • November 2024 (1)
  • June 2023 (1)
  • August 2021 (1)
  • April 2021 (1)
  • March 2021 (3)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • November 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (6)
  • September 2018 (1)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (1)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • April 2016 (1)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (2)
  • February 2014 (1)
  • October 2013 (2)
  • September 2013 (1)
  • August 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (1)
  • February 2013 (2)
  • September 2012 (2)
  • August 2012 (3)
  • May 2012 (2)
  • November 2011 (1)
  • August 2011 (1)
  • July 2011 (1)
  • June 2011 (1)
  • May 2011 (3)
  • March 2011 (1)
  • December 2010 (2)
  • August 2010 (3)
  • July 2010 (2)
  • October 2009 (2)
  • July 2009 (1)
  • October 2008 (2)
  • August 2008 (3)
  • July 2008 (1)
  • May 2008 (2)
  • April 2008 (1)
  • January 2008 (1)
  • November 2007 (1)
  • September 2007 (1)
  • July 2007 (2)
  • June 2007 (3)
  • January 2007 (2)
  • December 2006 (3)
  • October 2006 (1)
  • September 2006 (2)
  • August 2006 (1)
  • July 2006 (2)
  • June 2006 (2)
  • May 2006 (2)
  • April 2006 (5)
  • March 2006 (2)
  • February 2006 (3)
  • January 2006 (3)
  • December 2005 (3)
  • November 2005 (7)
  • October 2005 (8)
  • September 2005 (5)
  • August 2005 (5)
  • July 2005 (1)
  • February 2005 (3)
  • January 2005 (1)