Hasta La Creative!

Voici une très belle publicité pour la marque de chewing-gum Wrigley Extra Gum. Pensée par Omnicom Group’s Energy BBDO, cette création nous invite à découvrir le lien entre un père et sa fille, illustré par des grues d’origami en papier d’emballage partagées à travers les années. A découvrir en vidéo dans la suite.

We’ve seen the ads of diet plans, workout equipment, regimens, and a slew of other lose-weight-and-look-great supplements. These ads have two things in common: attractive actors/models with desirable physiques and fine print that reads “results not typical.”

Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new set of guidelines to remove the ubiquitous phrase “results not typical” from all advertisements. Advertisers now have one of two options:

1) Reveal that a spokesperson lost weight (or inches) by working out regularly, eating a balanced diet, and using their product.

2) Reveal that despite the significant amount of weight the spokesperson lost, the average person will lose far less using their product.

Endorsers such as Valerie Bertinelli, Kirstie Alley, Dan Marino and others may not be too pleased with this ruling as they can now be out of a job. However, this is a win for consumers, as advertisements are forced to be more truthful, putting the consumers’ weight-loss goals in realistic perspectives.

I’m just glad the FTC regulated the phrase and not the hard-bodied models. No one would win in that scenario.

Tommy Liu, the man, the legend wields his pen of creativity against the injustice of mediocrity plaguing the world as the Executive Integrated Producer at Supercool Creative & SpotZero where he also manages the blog. View some of his battles here (he doesn’t always win).

For weeks now, my old Creative Director Andrew Schmeling has greeted his IM buddies with the following statement: “Is it compellevant?” (Being a Creative Director, he gets to make statements, not ask questions.) However, each time I sign on, I’m reminded this neologism serves as a portmanteau for two key ingredients of great ads: They’re both compelling and relevant. As we’re all subjected to daily, there are far too many pellets of capitalism that are only one or the other. You’re talking cultural milestone when you find one with both.

This is clear from a quick retrospective of the some of the high points of the last half-century of advertising. Love or hate smoking, Leo Burnett’s Marlboro Man rode for decades because whether you were Daniel Boone seeking “more elbow room” or Chris McCandless going Into the Wild, open space has always been part of the American Dream. That’s compellevant. DDB’s classic “Think Small” campaign? It’s compellevant because in the crowded seascape of land yachts that was the American car industry in 1959, a plain little Beetle with a lot of white space couldn’t have spoken louder to those questioning the Don Drapers of the world.

Wieden’s Just Do It in the ’80s? Compellevant. A few lucky folks out there might still look and feel as good as they did when they were 18, but for the rest of us, the clock’s ticking. Recently, there’s the iPod Silhouettes campaign: iconic art direction (branding the non-color white?) and direct copy plus a simple, non-verbal message (music is fun). These are just a few notable examples, of course, but you can pretty much take it to the awards podium (or bank, if you’re concerned with selling stuff) that the best work is compellevant, right?

Well, it is for the most part. Over the last few decades, as certain categories have drifted free from the moorings of Rosser Reeves-style USP-based claims, a number of notable campaigns and ads have appeared that can’t make any plausible claim to relevance but have compelled their way to sales, awards, and in the age of YouTube, the ultimate tribute, spoofs. What are some of these campaigns?

The Budweiser Frogs come immediately to mind. While Miller was going for compellevant with “Less Filling, Tastes Great,” Goodby had put together this slow-building three-syllable chorus of croaks, and the dramatic timing seems impeccable 14 years later. What relevant message does it have about beer? None.

On a similar note, just a few years later, Leo Burnett came out with the Real American Heroes/Real Men of Genius radio spots, and Mr. Centerfold Retoucher, Mr. Jelly Donut Filler, and their worthy compadres didn’t tell you anything about Bud Light, but these ads help vault Budweiser as the top beer in America and inspired countless web searches to hear the ones you’d missed.

More recently, TBWA/Chiat/Day’s tragicomic Skittles storyof the office worker afflicted with the candy touch swept the interwebs and the awards shows with its unexpected premise and compelling humor, but did it say anything close to relevant about the product? Nah. Ditto Fallon UK’s Cadbury spot. On paper, a formula of Phil Collins plus drumming gorilla equals a straight line from Doobieville to WTF-land, but increased sales don’t lie. My left brain is still outraged every time this is being used to sell chocolate, for it’s the perfect portfolio school case study of what not to do, but both my eyes can’t stop watching and neither could millions of others.

What’s the moral of the story here? Don’t be afraid to venture a little bit off the straight, strategic path, especially if you’re working on one of those fun food or beverage accounts. Sure, it’ll be harder to sell to the client, but gold (and a gold lion) might be in them thar hills.

Nate Davis loves advertising, the interwebs, and social networks, yet looks askance on many of their cultural offspring. Read more at www.natedaviscopywriter.com.

I was speaking with a co-worker today and we began talking about how, with the recent major decrease in the economy and spending, companies have stopped using their employee’s brains and are doing the bare minimum to keep companies afloat. This is probably the worst idea companies have ever had (and that’s saying something).

Companies are no longer buying marketing and advertising spots to save money. This idea has killed off corporations and lesser known items have taken its spot. Why? Because the smaller company didn’t forget to use a strategy.

It’s not that one product was better than another, it’s that the small corporation took the money that they had reserved for marketing and actually used it for, surprise, marketing. They created a campaign, a strategy, and while the big company sat on their hands and saved their money, the lesser known of the two became the top seller.

Here’s another analogy to put it into perspective. Remember the guy in your high school that every girl had a crush on, but he really wasn’t that great (or maybe he was, but there may have been better in the school, too)? Guess what, he had a strategy, and it worked. Whether it was being rude to girls, ignoring them, or playing a great game, he had a strategy. The rest of the male population only knew they liked a girl and that was as far as they got.

Advertising and marketing is the same. It’s all about the strategy. I’ve tried numerous unknown products and found that, in some cases, the product is better than the large corporate products, but they’re missing a great advertising campaign and the strategy that comes with it.

Perhaps the best strategic campaign, and we’ve all heard of it, is HBO’s True Blood. Not only did they have fantastic print ads, but they also had Web Sites for vampires (which surprisingly all the vampires we have in the world tell their secrets on), a synthetic blood drink for vampires which they had print ads for as well, True Blood books and numerous interactive sites and games. They even brought in other vendors, such as the Mini Cooper. And part of their strategy was the option to spend money for different campaigns in different continents. There wasn’t just one campaign for the entire world. And the consumer advocates built out of this strategy was immense.

Let’s go back in time to the 1680’s, where the word strategy was developed. The word “strategy” actually comes from war, meaning, “to lead.” It’s the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

What I’m saying is this – It’s all about strategy. A corporation could have the best product, idea, etc., but if there’s no strategy, there’s no competition. So go to war, strategize, and be victorious.

AdWeek and Harris recently released a poll asking those not involved in the advertising trade what they thought of advertising’s “relevancy.”

The results show that most find that our jobs, as a whole, are rather irrelevant.

Advertising’s down, no doubt, and now Adweek’s heaping salt on the wound!

Well, Mr. and Mrs. America, let’s look at a life without advertising. A life of relevance.

First of all, without advertising, we would not have free access to television. Advertisers in essence pay for the shows we watch by running commercials. By the same logic, the web in that state would not be as comprehensive as the one we experience now. Radio would be a paid service with subscribers. Programs and shows with relatively lower ratings would be immediately slashed since they would no longer be able to support themselves.

The cultural art form of advertising would be lost.  The circle of life would be disrupted.  Just as life influences advertising, ads influence culture.

Without advertising, creatives would be cubicle-bound and non-imaginative. Serious. Boring. Sex would not sell, and neither would honesty. No one would fight for the cause. PETA would consist of two guys fighting for animal rights, and no one would care. Animals wouldn’t be cool to wear. Or not wear. Or own.  Times Square would be dimly lit. Your favorite beer would be just “BEER,” as the term ‘generic’ would dominate store shelves. Color would be sparse. Trendsetters would be trend-less. No brands, no logos, no icons or spokespeople. No sexy models, sexy shows, or suggestive commercials. We wouldn’t know who to vote for, or why. Four hour erections? Who’d need the pills, let alone use them? No body-image, no silicone implants, no tummy-tucks. No Jon & Kate. Michael Jackson would just be another singer. No Hollywood trailers, stars, starlets, tramps, red carpets, or blockbuster openings. No E! TV, no TMZ. No Paris, Lindsay, Nicole, or reality TV. No Tila Tequila.

No PSA’s warning that your brain on drugs was scrambled. Or that kids shouldn’t smoke crack and that crack kills. Rather than axing the marketing budget first, corporations would axe employees. And that would be just fine, because there would be no PR effort, no big news story, therefore no downside.

Life would go on, but it would be bland and tasteless. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and MySpace: no need for them.

Take a picture of the Cold War-era Russia and apply it to a life without advertising. Cold. Drizzling. Muddled.

The link to this study is now unavailable.  Was the issue so unimportant that Adweek pulled the article? Or was the study published on the wrong day?

Luckily, I printed it:

In an AdweekMedia/Harris Poll last month, respondents were given a chance to say they don’t feel strongly about the industry one way or another, and nearly half of them took it. Asked to characterize their overall impression of “the advertising industry in general,” 47 percent said it’s “neither negative nor positive.” Predictably, those with a negative view of the business (9 percent “very,” 28 percent “somewhat”) outnumbered those with a positive view (2 percent “very,” 15 percent “somewhat”). (The total exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.)

If such numbers count as not-so-bad news for the ad business, responses were less positive on the question of whether consumers find advertising relevant to their lives (”By relevant,” Harris told respondents, “we mean how it connects to things that are ongoing in your daily life”). Given the effort put into aiming the right ad at the right target, the numbers here were pretty lackluster. Eight percent of respondents said advertising is “very relevant” to their lives, and 42 percent said it’s “somewhat relevant.” Thirty-two percent termed it “not that relevant” and 14 percent “not at all relevant,” with the rest unsure.

Can you say “OUCH!”?

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Account Coordinator. His passion is writing. Reach out and touch him: www.linkedin.com or www.twitter.com.

Most of us have vices, those haunting addictions or habits that are unhealthy, uncool,  unapproved, against the law, or absurdly annoying. From eating too much red meat to knuckle-cracking, there is something you do that is bad for you. For me, it’s waking up, but I’m trying to stop.

We have habits that offend others, those that offend our bodies, and some that do both. The poster-child for the “both” category has got to be smoking. Not only is it terrible for you, it’s terrible for others, and in many places, against the law. Efforts to get people to stop smoking have ranged from protests and ad campaigns to changing laws and levying huge tax increases.

Personally, I could care a less if you smoke–unless you mean something to me–which most of you don’t. However, if you are a smoker and want to quit, there is a new spot out of Australia that might be able to help. Unfortunately, it has become controversial, aka “offensive,” so use it while you can. Truly powerful television.

One thing you will notice in advertising these days is that many companies look at the available talent in the market to cast in commercial productions. But the real question is, do you really need to pay high costing ads to make sure that they get the right mix in producing these ads?

There are various ways to get through commercial advertising and this can be done through creative wizardry. You just have to think outside the box, use resources like technology and representation in other forms such as this one which makes use of balloon dolls that can capture the whole essence of the product being advertised.

Technorati Tags: advertising, levis, jeans, pants, dolls, commercial, technology, balloon

Audi has been creating (or rather constructing) some fascinating spots lately, like the “strings” spot I wrote about a few months back.

This most recent spot from BBH London continues along the deconstruction & construction path, stylizing the internal workings of the Audi RS6 via Hugarian Gymnasts. Certainly not the first thing I would think of, but the suspension of reality and the acceptance of the gymnasts loosely representing the internals of an RS6 engine does something fairly powerful, and certainly creates an interesting spot.

So the ultimate question: do gymnastics, string figures, and automotive orchestras work to sell cars and change brand awareness? Or does it simply yield commercials that are interesting to watch?

Sure, there are dozens of ways to judge advertising as “good,” but it’s important to remember that good advertising needs to grab the attention of the target. GSD&M|idea city certainly kept that in mind with this spot introducing the BMW V8 M3 – my auto enthusiast friends (and not advertising/creative-minded folk) have been talking a lot about it – which I’d imagine is the most important goal for BMW.

After touring Europe and visiting the BMW M factory in Munich to study the engine, idea city folks figured out how to take three of the Belgium-build V8 engines and cram cameras, lenses and lighting into ‘em. Then after filming for four 20-hour days, they captured (at 10,000 fps) what happens in a single revolution inside of the 420hp beast of an engine. Without any CGI. It’s amazing that something like that still happens. But it’s incredible, and certainly creating a bit of buzz in the auto world.

Regardless of whether or not it’s a 100% accurate representation of the engine under full running load, it’s an impressive feat in terms of cinematographic execution and in not falling back on CGI. It definitely makes a powerful statement for BMW.