Dear Anonymouscoward:
First off, thank you so much for granting us here at adland the right to have an opinion differing from yours. It's so very gracious of you.
Secondly, you seemed bothered by my use of the word "hipster." I guess I pushed a button. My apologies. Let's call it "stereotypical youth." will that work? Becuase they certainly weren't breaking any boundaries with their lovely, thin and young casting.
How about let's talk about the ad instead, which, if you were careful to read my analysis, you'd realize that was exactly what I was doing.
The Under 24 demographic seems to be the holy grail for every client out there. They think they have all the dough to spend, so everything needs to be funneled to them. Having worked on Levi's before, I should know. It's easier to pull off in the European markets, as they're more expensive there. But in the States, not really. They're actually considered midrange or cheap. So it's a bit weird to focus on that area now.
Regardless of pricing point, the problem is by narrowing the market in such a way, they corrupted what has been a great, strong, and well-crafted campaign that is thought provoking as much as it was in some instances, divisive. Instead we're now appealing to the same demographic as every other denim company. Why is this? Why the change?
Levi's is an American brand, Levi jeans were initially built for work. Marry the two points, and voila. The first relevant and compelling thing Levi's has done in a very long time beyond just sex and youth and pretty people in varying states of undress. Something for America to rally behind. Youths and oldies alike. Walt Whitman started it off. And guess what? The jeans were secondary. People were wearing them, but they weren't the object of the camera's (or the vo's) affection.
To now take the idea, shift the focus away from America as a whole, and narrow it down to "youth culture," and play up the more tactile elements of the jeans makes this ad strategically not as compelling as before.
Poetry is subjective, granted. But advertising isn't. And guess what? This was written for a TV spot. This is an ADVERT. It's using poetry as a device, but it's not a poem. It's voice over copy. And It's overwritten. Again that's the fault of the shift in tone that loses the depth it worked so hard to create over several years worth of work. But there's not many times you can get away with using Walt Whitman in a spot.
And as to your last comment, as Dabitch has pointed out: we've been over this a hundred times before. Everyone who writes for Adland, writes, art directs and designs and creative directs for a living.
Thanks for the snark though, it's always appreciated.
I think in the end it'll be the same way we target a lot of other crimes-you go after the big guns so to speak. So the guy who posted his kid's party put to Beyonce is less an issue than the Kim Dot Com's of the world. That or perhaps by hit count. Someone, I think will end up finding the balance between sensible legislation and overkill. I just think to throw out the law because "it's too hard," isn't going to work either, because then you're throwing out the rights of people who worked hard to create stuff.
Nice engaging discussion all around.
@RJGNYC
If you notice, too, the Vimeo video Dabitch posted is now marked "Private." Thats how to put something online legally.
That's the difference. The "making a mix tape," argument doesn't work because you weren't posting the mix tape online for millions to potentially copy.
As to whether Silk knowingly knew it or otherwise...well clients have teams of lawyers whose sole job is to check this stuff out. case in point, I shot a TV spot earlier this year in which there were fake brands in it, in the background. We're talking cutaway shots. Still the legal team of both agency and client had to go through the process of making sure the made up brand I named didn't exist or didn't infringe on copyright in some way shape or form. Now you can blame an overly litigious society but I would be quicker to blame a society that doesn't value the law anymore. At least not this particular law.
And the thing about the law is, theft is theft. they don't gauge intent. I may have stolen a car "Just for me," but I still stole a car.
I know it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that's the problem with the Freehadists. They have made this argument so. And it's stupid. No matter which way you cut it, your online life is no longer private. our lives have changed. Whether you want them to or not, the laws have not.
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
