I think Madison Ave nailed it quite succinctly. Much as it may offend those tender artistic souls out there, advertising's entire raison d'etre (pardon my French) is to sell. Businesses don't spend billions each year to amuse and entertain; they're looking for a return on their investment. As someone once said, if it doesn't sell, it ain't creative. A cold and brutal calculus, perhaps, but true nonetheless.
None of which is to say that creativity doesn't have a role in advertising. Quite the contrary: As someone else once said, you can't bore people into buying your product.
The key is to find a balance between showmanship and salesmanship.
As far as Burger King goes, I think it's been a pretty mixed bag so far. I like the new Hootie commercial, although I think some of the leering sexual innuendo - bereft of irony or camp - leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. And, of course, the Subservient Chicken was a deserved success. But Ugoff and Dr. Angus and, to a degree, the "Office" rip-off commercials - those seemed to be more style than substance. Then again, in fairness, I'm not the sort of person who would eat some place just because their commercials seem "cool." I'd eat their if the food seemed good or the prices seemed reasonable - you know, like Hooters.
Weird is good, weird is beautiful. But the whole thing reeks of overkill. The idea of counterfeit Minis may make for a cute : 60 commercial. But building an entire website around the concept is stretching an already thin concept to the breaking point. Is the content compelling enough to keep people there more than a minute or two? Not to me. Had I not been in the business, I would've lingered there for about 30 seconds before clicking to the website for Mistress Cleo's International House of Pain.
When you get right down to it, is the expense and effort of creating such an elaborately conceived website any likely to produce better results than a single, well-executed ad? Some of the best stuff Crispin's done for the Mini has been the simplest (i.e., strapping a Mini atop an SUV, putting a coin-operated Mini in a shopping mall).
Same thing with Burger King. The Subservient Chicken was a big hit in part because it was simple (and addictive). Contrast that with their web work for Dr. Angus. All the bells and whistles in the world couldn't disguise the fact that the concept was at best mildly amusing. As with the counterfeit Minis, there was barely enough material for a commercial, let alone a website.
Maybe the lesson is that while weird is good, simpler is better.
Celebrities - and I use that term loosely when referring to the likes of Ben "Gigli" Affleck, Chevy "Caddyshack II" Chase and Whoopi "Hollywood Squares" Goldberg - have every right to express their opinions. I think what bothers so many people is the weight that these opinions seem to carry.
Sean Penn may be a brilliant actor. But is his opinion on Iraq any more important, any more informed than the guy manning the cash register at Blockbuster? Just because someone is famous doesn't make them an expert on foreign policy. It's like having Paul Wolfowitz do movie reviews ("Thumbs up to 'Apopcalypse Now!' The blood, the gore, the devastation! It's the feel-good film of the year!")
To me, perhaps the most disturbing thing about this billboard is Chevy Chase's eerie resemblance to a Galapagos tortoise.
,
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
I know puns are way pass
- reply
Permalink