You make a very valid point, Deep Ed. (Any relation to Drivers Ed?) You're right, of course. Very few people will be outraged when they discover that the robots made out of Mini parts are a hoax. It all sounds very clever and entertaining. And it's certainly benign compared to outright scams such as having people flirt with strangers only to try to sell them a particular brand of drink or cell phone.
Nonetheless, on some level, I can't help but wonder if such subterfuege - and yes, I know I probably spelled that wrong - doesn't have a corrosive effect. If everything's a hustle, a gimmick, a come-on, people become less trusting and more cynical.
I certainly agree with Deep Ed that inane advertising that insults consumers' intelligence - i.e., the kind that I do - has given our industry a bad name. But so, I fear, will the kind of advertising that seeks to win their trust by tricking them. And do the claims made by these undercover ads seem any more believable once people realize they've been "had?"
Finally, thinking about the "overkill" nature of the latest Mini campaign, I can't help but compare it with another current Mini campaign. It's a series of magazine ads showing how technology tends to get better as it gets smaller - such as computers and cell phones. The final frame shows the Mini. The point is made, simply and beautifully, without any words - or fake websites or bogus books.
Is it better or worse? I don't know. But it works.
Hello, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such posts as "Rats in Quizno's Commercials?" and "Goodby Ripping Off McClain Finlon."
Here's the thing: While I haven't had the benefit of seeing Crispin's latest "marketing ploy" on behalf of the Mini Cooper, I'm sure it's nothing short of bloody brilliant and will be sweeping award shows on every continent - including Antartica.
But is it overkill?
I mean, a 40-page book and multiple websites? Isn't that just a tad excessive and - dare I say it - self-indulgent?
Sure, it's getting buzz. But they generated just as much heat with far more simple, elegant and arresting executions. Remember the Mini mounted on the top of the SUV? Or the coin-operated one parked in a mall offering rides for a couple of thousand quarters?
They were intriguing to be sure - but the pay off was immediate and to the point.
This latest execution, by contrast, seems like the world's shaggiest dog story - all set up and very little pay off. The punch line seems almost anticlimatic.
Still, it's hard to argue with success. The robot controversy seems to be getting a lot of press for Crispin. . . uh, I mean, the Mini Cooper.
On a semi-related note, this discussion raises a couple of questions. Is advertising that tries to pretend it's not advertising necessarily a good thing? I mean, sure, a lot of it is wonderfully clever. But it seems manipulative at best and downright dishonest at worst. Instead of trying to engage in a dialog with the consumer, you're trying to outwit them instead. Does this ultimately lead to ever more jaded consumers? And is it even necessary? Remember the words of Howard Gossage: "People read what interests them - and sometimes it's an ad." So why go to such lengths to disguise and deceive your customers? Maybe all you need to do is create an ad that is so engaging and entertaining that people will want to invest time in it.
Which leads me to another question: The idea of treating the whole world as a potential media buy - to not just being limited to such traditional media as print and broadcast - is certainly a good one. But can it be taken too far? Take the recent Major League Baseball/Spiderman controversy. Sure, it was a unique placement. But the reaction was uniformly negative. How far is too far? When does guerilla marketing go from being innovative to invasive and intrusive?
Sorry this post went on for so long. I'd like to hear what others think.
Call me crazy, but I think whoever "wins" should be whoever came up with the idea first. I know that Burger King's commercial is new; how old are the other two? The irony, of course, is that Burger King's "solid" campaign is essentially just a rip-off of "The Office." (Check out the article in "The Guardian" for Ricky Gervais' thoughts on the matter.) Still, the subservient chicken rocks.
Being a bit harsh with Lynette355 aren't you, CopyWhore? After all, she's entitled to her opinion as much as you are. And while I don't completely agree with her, I'd say she's got a very good point.
(For what it's worth, the only Pony ad I found personally offensive was the one depicting a crucifixtion - and I'm a lapsed Catholic.)
Sure, these ads are "different." But is that enough? This seems to be yet another "edgy" and "daring" campaign that seems designed more to impress other creatives than potential customers. It's as if they are more concerned about pushing the envelope than the product itself. Just like those hideous Quizno's commercials. (Don't get me started. . .)
When I see ads like these, I admire the craftsmanship that went into them. But ultimately they leave me unmoved. They don't give me any product attributes - just attitude. And that's not enough to persuade me to shell out a small fortune on their shoes. People may think the ads are cool and post them on their walls. But will they buy the shoes?
Maybe they will. Maybe these ads will be a huge success and sales will go through the roof.
All I know is that Nike does consistently brilliant work and yet they rarely resorts to shock tactics. And they don't seem to be hurting any.
That's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Ah yes, flat rats. Now there's an appetizing image for a restaurant. (Paging the Health Board.)
Granted, the commercial does cut through the clutter. But so would footage of Ernest Borgnine making love to the late Ethel Merman on their honeymoon - and who wants to see that? (Not even Ernest Borgnine, I wager.)
To me, this commercial stands as a classic example of creatives talking to other creatives rather the customers. They're so busy trying to hip and cool and coming up with "daring" work that will sweep the award shows that they have neglected to take into account the potential reaction of the very people they are supposedly trying to reach.
I'm sure the spongemonkeys will develop a small cult following who will howl at their screechy singing and offer up goat entrails in their name. But I have a hunch that will alienate the majority of viewers who will find them repulsive, disturbing or just plain dumb.
Don't believe me? Just do a quick search of Internet newsgroups using groups.google.com. Some posters liked the commercial (or, if they didn't, said their kids did). But for every favorable comment, there were many more like these:
"Have you seen the new "Quiznos" commercial with the singing rodent-like creatures with hideous faces? I really can NOT imagine what ad person decided that it would be a good idea to use ugly-ass rodents to sell subs. Very weird!!"
"I HATE, just HATE that commercial. It's the voices they use."
"Glad I'm not the only one! I find it annoying as hell."
Yes, the Quizno's commercial does have people talking. But it doesn't seem to have them going to Quizno's. And when you get right down to it, isn't that what this business is supposed to be about?
Hello, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such websites as www.bedwettersanonymous.com and www.atheistsforjesus.com.
Clearly, the EA commercial is nothing short of grand theft larceny. I will grant the creative team this much: They must have wontons the size of watermelons. I mean, it's one thing to rip off an obscure spot that has faded into the mists of memories. But to blatantly appropriate an internationally acclaimed concept that won enough awards to choke a rabid hippopotamus. . . well, that takes what the late existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre would call chutzpah.
(And yes, I am well aware of the irony of somebody who steals their schtick from a cartoon decrying plagarism.)
There is currently 1 user online.
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
Am I the only one who thinks that there is waaaaaaaaaay too much importance attached to awards?
Sure, it's nice to see good work being rewarded. But when you've got an entire issue of "Creativity" being devoted to ranking who won what, things have really gotten out of hand. Can you really measure an agency's worth by the number of One Show pencils or Cannes Lions they win?
It's gotten to the point where I question whether awards shows serve any function beyond lining the pockets of the people behind them. After all, you can already see much of the work in magazines like "Creativity" and "Communication Arts" and on websites like this one. (By the way, major props to Dabitch for providing such an invaluable forum for schmucks like me to vent.)
And while I certainly respect the caliber of judges at most award shows, I certainly don't need, say, Lee Clow or Jeff Goodby to tell me whether an ad is good or not.
And that's another thing. It's generally the same two dozen or so creatives judging these shows. So the results, with one or two exceptions, are invariably the same.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me state that I've only won a handful of minor awards in my thoroughly undistinguished career. But that doesn't bother me. I'm as insecure and ego-ridden as the next creative, but I've never given awards much thought. Yeah, it would be nice to win some - but only because others place so much emphasis on them, they'd be more likely to hire me.
- reply
Permalink