I like A the best. The woman's voice is more soothing than the man's. I also do not really like the straight musical commercial

I think A was a little more clear and to the point than the others to me.

I ranked it in that order based on how creative and natural the advertisements look.

I like option A "Germ Shark" the most because I think it has the most attention grabbing advertisement. I like how modern it is and I also like the branding. I think it fits more with people in my age group. I also like the logo of the product. Option B is my second choice because it has a humorous element to it and the commercial is shot quite well. I ranked Option C last because it felt the least personal to me. There were too many closeups and receiving so many bottles made the product felt cheaper in a way.

I truly enjoyed Option A because it was a mix of music and interesting visuals while still being informative. I really like that it conveys that sanitizer will be donated to medical professionals, seniors and other vulnerable people who may need it. I believe that would really resonate with people. The blue lighting on the bottle itself is appealing. I think the visuals are a tasteful mix of aesthetics and display everyday situations where we may wish to use this product. I felt like I was given into this product and how it will affect my skin as well as it is FDA approved which is always nice to hear. With Option C, I feel like it's very artistic in nature. The opening sequence is quite compelling by stating how many germs we tend to have on the average human hand. The visuals are very dynamic with a lot of energy and action. The drumming of the music is high tempo which create interest. I could see myself turning my head to see if I weren't looking directly at the screen. I can also appreciate the lack of narrative voiced aloud. Honestly, if this video included the portion about donating bottles to professionals and those in need, it would have likely been my favorite. I am a visual person who really can appreciate the angle. I think the music is better overall in terms of tempo and sound effects compared to Option A. It was a close call between those two options. As for the final Option B, I didn't feel that it was a bad advertisement. It was a little bit "vanilla" in nature. By that, I mean that it was rather low energy. It had the pace of an advertisement I'd imagine seeing late at night on television. The music touches are nice but very quiet. I could see some people preferring it. I did notice the sense of humor clip about using the product to turn a page inside a journal or notebook. That was amusing to me however I could see some people who have been affected by the pandemic not finding it as funny in the moment. That's not to say comedy ought to follow suit fully to suit everyone's preference, though. It just didn't get my attention as much as the other ones in terms of visuals which felt very bland combined with soft music and slow pacing. With that said, I really believe Option C had a lot of potential with the small changes that could bring it full circle. The only downside to Option C is that if someone weren't looking precisely at their screen, they may not know the product name or may even miss the advertisement entirely. But, most advertisements are placed before videos such as on YouTube where I could see the application of it being great to get the point across without being verbal about it. I think it would do well in such a format. It may also do well in commercial breaks for shows like Hulu and Netflix. Option A strikes me as best for somewhere like Spotify in between songs or in the middle of shows on Netflix and so forth, but perhaps not quite dynamic enough to be used on YouTube where the average audience tends to be younger in age. I could see Option B being used as advertisements during or before more serious videos to lighten the mood a little but also due to it's very low energy it will match the tone and calmness of more serious videos. Those are my thoughts on these three advertisements.

As much I an ad is you have only a limited time to make an impression so I looked first at video length. Then I went to the efficiency of the most important info with the time allotted to make a decision. And finally I saw what was most endearing and had a personal touch to make the ad relatable to the customer. I chose B because of it's shortest ad time, picking out the most important facts of the product, and cleverly showing the narrator for that personal touch.

Option a had poor English option c has a very catchy piece of music but it seemed wrong and although option b seems scripted it was the best of the bunch because I enjoyed the voice of the person who was doing the ad

I picked B because its more like a standard commercial which I prefer. A is a decent commercial and I don't like C at all so I would prefer to never see that one again.

i like the person in the video.

"B" was funny and "meta" and caught me off guard, got me more interested when the announcer guy stopped and used the product. It was kind of funny. Also "B" showed a person using it and handling food. It made me think it is safe for that, and makes me more interested. "C" has very cool music. It's really upbeat and grabs my attention. video "A" had some pronunciation problems, such as the word "national." The music also did not really fit well and seemed way too much like "stock" music that you can purchase.

Ad B has a person talk about all the bonuses of using this hand sanitizer and is a bit humorous. Ad C you can just read all the bonuses and at the end it says that they will donate a bottle to the needy if you buy a certain amount. Ad A the lady sounds like she is speaking broken english.

All three options failed to provide a compelling reason why I should purchase this brand of hand sanitizer. Option B is the strongest because it best explains why this product is effective. Option A suffers because there is not much credibility given to the speaker because she sounds young and inexperienced. Option C is difficult to follow because there is no narrator.

I chose B first because the pacing seems appropriate enough for hand sanitizer, and has narration that helps ease the viewer's worries about the product. I chose A second because the music is somewhat inappropriate for hand sanitizer, but the commercial still provides some selling points about the product and tries to keep the product name in the viewer's mind with a jingle. I chose C last because the type of commercial that C is, showing statistics and an intense drum beat in the background, is too intense for something as simple as hand sanitizer.

B shows the product being used in everyday, real life situations that people will encounter and shows why you might want to use it. A mostly just hypes the product up - exciting, but a lot less realistic and relatable. C mostly just throws 'scary stats' at you that don't have real world relevance.

B - is my top choice, I like how the person narrating has a soft clear voice and demonstrates the hand sanitizer on himself which gives it a natural flow and a more appealing and honest opinion. Also demonstrating how someone uses it whilst eating a snack. He explains the facts but there is not too much information just enough for the consumer to understand and take in. The music is soft and flows well with the whole commercial.C - The music is very bold, maybe a little too harsh but impresses on how tough this product is with killing the bacteria etc. I like the use of the graphics showing the ingredients and the other information along with the logo of the product. The introduction of medical professionals at work enhance the claim that this is FDA approved. The speed of the commercial emulates how fast and easy this product dries. I can imagine that this kind of commercial would appeal to the younger generation. The combination of the music, the people in the commercial, along with the narrator has a very young and hip vibe.D - This is my least favorite choice. There is no narration so the consumer needs to be watching and not just passing by if shown on TV. This is a pretty big down fall as commercials are not only watched but heard, for example on the radio, podcasts etc. This narrows down the possibility of this commercial being shown on all types of media. With that aside I do like the tough sounding music which matches the product and the graphics and film are very simple and easy to understand. The use of color is very subtle which you could argue is representative of how gentle this product is. This portrays a very simple and straight forward message.

Hands-down this was my favorite commercial. I liked Option B because it was informative and provided a lot of detailed information about the product and about its benefits… And it even managed to be funny in an unexpected and creative way! I really liked this advertisement and it found a way to stick with me, which is the most important thing for advertisers & marketing agents! The only thing I would change about this advertisement is to use a different narrator, with a more attractive-sounding accent, and I would also focus some attention on improving the sound-quality of the narration.Option C was very much to the point of the message that they were trying to convey. And the beat/drum heavy sound track was very attention-grabbing, but then became excessive pretty quickly. I could definitely envision older viewer being very turned-off by the exceptionally loud percussion. Personally, I liked this, and the drum-line-style soundtrack kept me engaged and energized, but I can definitely see that not being the universal reaction to this advertisement.Option A was the least appealing advertisement because it seemed really unprofessional and honestly it was almost like watching an Axe Body Spray commercial but for hand sanitizer, which is a really weird thing! The music was intended to be catchy, but only succeeded in sounding hokey. Also, that narrator’s voice almost sounded like a robot with an odd Eastern European accent. Overall, this advertisement was just a strange and off-putting mess.

A was way too over produced and corny to the point of satire.C was ok but it really needed some voice over to explain the product better.B for me is the clear winner altho I would cut out the guy that looks like he is live blogging on youtube but besides that it was pretty straight and to the point

I think B is the best by far. It gives you all the information in a fun way. The joke of the script writer using it to turn the page is funny. C is fine too. Nothing charming about it like B. C has no narration. 40 seconds is too long for a commercial like that.

B was funny and described the product well. It was more concise than A. Option C had great visuals but waaaay overused the bass and became annoying quickly to listen to. Option A was too long and the person badly mispronounced some words like national

I liked B the most because it not only explained the product but was somewhat humorous as well. I was not particularly thrilled with the background music of option C but the ad itself seem to be in line with most modern ads. As far as option A, it explained the product well but I just did not like the voice that was doing the actual commercial. That's only my opinion though.

Option B's narrator has the most difficult to interpret accent out of the three videos but I think this helps it be more effective. It is the only video that attempts humor and though it wasn't hilarious, the actor/narrator comes off as likeable and makes the viewer appreciate the accent more. It also doesn't make the sanitizer seem like it is vastly superior to others, making it seem more realistic than the other videos. Option A tries to make the sanitizer sound like it does a lot more than other sanitizers, when it is probably common knowledge now that they all contain the same basic ingredient. Option A is too loud with too much text.

I think that C worked best because of the statistics that it provided and the background music was not too much like A. I feel that B did a good job describing the product and its use. The humor in it was also not bad. I feel that A was too loud and there were moments in it that seemed grammatically incorrect which made it kind of difficult to watch. Although both A and B had clear accents I feel that A's took away from the video.

C seemed more to the point and had text to read. B was information as well, but lost me when it switched to the view of the youtuber type person. Option A immediately lost me with the music.

I really like how C was able to say a lot without using a voiceover. the ad itself is also superior to the other two. I like B next because the voice spoke in a decent and understandable tone. A was a bit weird with their grasp of the english language.

C was the option that engaged me the most. The music was upbeat and the text was interesting to read. It is easier for me to process text since it is faster than listening to someone speak. The other two videos were ranked lower because I less preferred hearing spoken word. The speakers were also a bit distracting because they don't sound like native English speakers so I was more distracted trying to listen to them than getting the message of the hand sanitizer. The male's accent was less distracting than the female's accent which is why B was rated second. B and A also didn't have music that was as catchy as option C.

I actually prefer the no talking in choice C. I think choice B and A get a bit dull after a while because of the lack of energy in the speakers voices. I love the simplicity of choice C. It focuses on the facts about this product and why it is superior to others , and I love the energizing music as well. It kept me engaged and interested in learning more about the product which I cannot say about choices B and A. Overall, I think choice C is the clear best option because it gets the message about the product out in a very clear and easy to understand way.

I prefer choice A because it is the only video where they don't talk. It makes you read thw facts which makes you more engaged. I also liked the fast paced music. The colors were nice as well because they coordinate with the brand.

I prefer option C video to prefer for this travel sized hand sanitizer. Because it well explained and looking very good explanation than others. And also easy to understand and make interest to buy the product.

i think that option C was the most appealing, i like options C and A where very straightforward and traditional like something I would normally see

Everyone knows why hand sanitizer is needed and they know what is does, so I don't think you have to have a lot of narration. Just the images and the few graphics was enough to advertise the product and relay other information. Video B tried to add a little humor so that made it a little more bearable than A which used a weak spokesperson;

TOSS UP BETWEEN C & AC - Grabs my attention and keeps it focused on the advertisement. A - Its catchy, but i find myself getting distracted by the woman's accent and pronunciation of certain words, like "national"

Option A came off as really cheesy. It tried to be edgy, but seemed to be pretty poorly written, and doesn't provide a lot of information. While the promise to donate 1 bottle to someone in need for every purchase is inspiring, it isn't enough to overcome the poorly conceived ad. I liked that option C emphasized the benefit to you and your family, and it seemed to emphasize community more than the other videos. I also appreciated the inclusion of statistics explaining just how many germs are on our hands (and how many of them Germ Shark kills). Option B was pretty close to option C, due to its usage demonstration and the claim that it is pharmaceutical grade. However, I thought that C was the best overall.

I'm not fond of Options B or A. I feel like I'm watching an informercial on the home shopping network. Option C is catchy and has a rhythmic beat along with the facts to convince people to purchase the product. It looks more like a commercial I'd see on television.

Option C by far is the best choice. It's to the point, easy to read (and accessible for Deaf/hard of hearing folks), and not too long. There's no need for voiceover in the ad and most people would want to mute it anyway (I would, I hate ads with sound more than I hate regular ads). Also the beat and the snapping helped keep my attention, something about the rhythm.

C is the best because it is informative without an annoying narrator and it feels more snappy and professional compared to the two other ones. I liked A because it tell you that it donates hand sanitizers to certain groups if you buy. B just felt sloppy and annoying.

I liked C the best because I found it the most informative while being relatively simple. I just liked following along to the the text without any voice. Option B was pretty average to me, nothing really stood out. I found the background music of A to be annoying.

C's upbeat soundtrack and energetic beat really grabs your attention. I think it narrowly edges out the more laid-back but amusing B, particularly because to the best of my knowledge B doesn't highlight your donation campaign, while C does. A, however, is just plain bad. The girl mispronounces several words and it lacks both the energy and enthusiasm of C as well as the charm of B.

I ranked C as #1, because I loved the catchy background music, and that was something that would really catch my attention when an ad comes on. I also liked that things were written out clearly on this ad because I absorb information better when it's written out instead of verbal. I ranked Option A as #2 because the ladies voice was soothing and I liked seeing a different clip each time she brought up a new point (like the video clip of the scientists when she said it was expert approved). I ranked Option B as my #3 because it was very, very boring and would never catch my attention. The guys voice was slow and monotone, and their wasn't a lot of noise in the background, and that just isn't appealing to me in a commercial. If a commercial is boring I'll completely tune it out, and I would never notice this one if it came on my TV.

C for #1 because it has no speech whatsoever, and the accents used in the other ads are definitely not American. Since I don't know what country these ads are going to be aired in, C is the safe bet.A for #2 because the person's speech is much, much more fluid, natural and has a better cadence than B.B for #3 because it's very obvious that the person is reading from a multi-page script, as there's pauses in his speech fluidity, which is proven during the cut-scene in the studio. This would be #2 just for the comedic effect but the halting speech is a deal-breaker as it's a pet peeve of mine when someone can't glance ahead and memorize two words to keep talking while turning pages.

Option C was the best because of all the visuals and the quick texts that went across the screen. I think a commercial like this looks like it would appear on American television. Option B was a close second, and I enjoyed the announcer taking a break to use the product himself - that was very cleaver! However, he said a lot of things that were hard to keep up with and made it difficult to follow along. Option A was the least appealing, as it was more about flash and looking good rather than the facts, and the announcer had a really bad accent that I couldn't ignore.

I like Option C the most, to me it's the best because of the fast paced high octane music that gets you interested right away and then the video gives you facts about germs, and how effective germ shark is in killing germs, there's no extra fluff or feeling like anyone's trying to sell you something it's letting the facts speak for themselves and I like that a lot, as opposed to option B for instance which was relying on an influencer to try and sell you the product.

while choices b & a are nice because of the actor's involved. choice C shows quick info and breaks things down in a more fluid format. while giving the same unspoken information.

So C has a very catchy beat, I can already feel it stuck in my head. It gives me the information easily. Option B sounds professional, but it's a bit cringey when the person pauses. A has a bit too much broken English in it for my taste.

I mainly liked C because it was quick and contained no talking. I didn't like A because the speaker mispronounced words and B's commercial was just weird. There was hand sanitizer next to someone cutting vegetables which was really odd.

I prefer videos like C, C isn't annoying to watch. I like concise, short ads, I don't want to watch a huge product description for something as simple as a hand sanitizer.

Option C is really good as it has an easy to follow video, but the audio/music is a bit obnoxious and should really be turned down a bit as it's distracting. Option B is also good, and was close to my top pick, as it's informative and has good comedy bit where he uses GermShark to clean his hands when he flips the page. Option A is just bad as the jingle is annoying and it's just too loud and has too much going on, very distracting.

C has great music, there's no need for voice over here. A is childish, bad music and doesn't fit the brand

Option C is straight to the point and doesn't involve a lot of gimmicks or cheesy songs or anything like that. Option A was a nice mix of words to read on the screen and speaking but the speaker's accent was distracting and she pronounced some words wrong. It was also too long to hold my attention. Option B was just boring to me, it didn't catch my eye or make me want to try the product really.

I like C the best, as I like seeing the sentences on the screen. The music is upbeat and strong, and matches the brand and logo well. I like how the video alternates between a written screen to video footage, as it adds to the interest to what you are watching. The scene changes at a comfortable but exciting speed and keeps the audience engaged. The color choices also go well with the overall feel of the brand and video, and offers a cooling/calming feel to the otherwise bold feeling of the video. The overall quality of the video is very professional, and really adds to the credibility of the product which adds to the trustworthiness of the product and company itself.

I feel that they were all pretty goo din that they explained the product thoroughly and made great cases as to why it should be purchased. My first pick without the narration had the best energy to it, sound, while still holding your attention and being very catchy and memorable because it is all done with sound and very effective but brief text phrases that were easy to read and understand. The others with the narration had a bit of a low energy level and both included people that have accents that for me, made it slightly hard to be understood.