Une mise en image percutante par la créatrice Beth Fulton dénoncant le média TV, en s’inspirant d’un poème du scénariste et réalisateur Todd Alcott sur le monde de la télévision. Une libre interprétation à découvrir en vidéo dans la suite de l’article.
Une vidéo qui illustre le dernier projet et concept de l’artiste russe Stas Chepurnov. Il s’agit d’une installation singulière qui cherche à dépasser le cadre de la télévision à travers le mouvement de l’écran, le transformant en une fenêtre vers l’image.
div class=”imageleft”a href=”http://www.adrants.com/images/young_rubicam_head_to_head.jpg”img alt=”young_rubicam_head_to_head.jpg” src=”http://www.adrants.com/images/young_rubicam_head_to_head-thumb.jpg” width=”150″ height=”84″ //a/div
As if it were something new, Young Rubicam has created…wait for it…a TV show produced by an agency and sponsored by one advertiser.
pa href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/CC4P3IsClB7DGjFAP-3_9eXhiKM/0/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/CC4P3IsClB7DGjFAP-3_9eXhiKM/0/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/abr/
a href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/CC4P3IsClB7DGjFAP-3_9eXhiKM/1/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/CC4P3IsClB7DGjFAP-3_9eXhiKM/1/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/a/p
div class=”imageleft”a href=”http://www.adrants.com/images/billy_fuccillo_its_huge.jpg”img alt=”billy_fuccillo_its_huge.jpg” src=”http://www.adrants.com/images/billy_fuccillo_its_huge-thumb.jpg” width=”150″ height=”122″ //a/div
When you move to the middle of upstate nowhere, you become privy to some seriously wacky shit.
pa href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/fVsDg7cKwfb2YN_DVT4VgSvJCTM/0/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/fVsDg7cKwfb2YN_DVT4VgSvJCTM/0/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/abr/
a href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/fVsDg7cKwfb2YN_DVT4VgSvJCTM/1/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/fVsDg7cKwfb2YN_DVT4VgSvJCTM/1/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/a/p
Une belle campagne d’image pour la marque Sony, présentant le système des nouvelles télévisions HD. Un travail du studio Superfad, organisé en 3 parties : la naissance, l’explosion et la libération des couleurs. A découvrir en vidéo dans la suite.
 |
 |
| THE ORIGINAL? Canal Digital HD-TV – 2008 Claim : “HD-quality means five times better image!” Agency : Grey Stockholm (Sweden) |
LESS ORIGINAL : Sky HDTV “Discover the world in Hi-Definition” – 12/2009 Source : Adsoftheworld Agency : Heye Group, Munich, (Germany) |
| Même en regardant de très très près, c’est exactement la même idée… (dans les deux cas quand on se rapproche on voit que la neige sur l’écran est en fait une nuée de fourmies) |
div class=”imageleft”a href=”http://www.adrants.com/images/kim_kardashian_tits.jpg”img alt=”kim_kardashian_tits.jpg” src=”http://www.adrants.com/images/kim_kardashian_tits-thumb.jpg” width=”150″ height=”215″ //a/div
Not that we didn’t already know this but reality TV and the notion those chosen to participate in those shows are TV’s new ratings capital is explored
pa href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NLHvk9MEZQ8zhWDhkxNhORBzP8o/0/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NLHvk9MEZQ8zhWDhkxNhORBzP8o/0/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/abr/
a href=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NLHvk9MEZQ8zhWDhkxNhORBzP8o/1/da”img src=”http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NLHvk9MEZQ8zhWDhkxNhORBzP8o/1/di” border=”0″ ismap=”true”/img/a/p
The recession has either changed the way advertisers do business or has forced us to reevaluate the ways in which we do business. The focus has shifted to the effectiveness and efficiency of an ad campaign rather than stressing the campaign or ad variables such as reach and effective frequency.
If you work in a media department, then measuring effectiveness and efficiency is something you’ve likely done for years with little to no fanfare from the client side. Well, the climate’s changed, and clients are concerned more than ever — with good reason — that their ads and campaigns meet efficient, effective, and measurable goals. Their priority is to connect with the target audience in a manner that’s more in-tune with a reduced budget. Clients are are requiring or searching for agencies capable of providing campaigns that work harder and smarter.
In addition, advertisers (namely P&G and Coca Cola), have instituted Value Based Compensation (VBC) arrangements made up of a pay-for-performance (P4P) layout that can be attained in addition to a base fee.
The Nielsen Company has just announced that a new software product, Rapid Campaign Evaluation (RCE), a fast and inexpensive means to review ad performance in just over a week. Due to the costs incurred when an ad or campaign is launched, RCE will give agencies information quickly so as to allow them to respond in an appropriate manner.
Richard Reeves, associate director of Consumer Research Services at the Nielsen Company, notes an agency not only will have the ability to evaluate their own endeavors but the ability to evaluate their competitor’s as well.
“Whenever a new commercial is executed,” Reeves says, “there is always that element of anticipation about how it will perform in the ‘real world.’ If it’s a competitor’s ad — you are usually left worrying about the damage it will do to your brand.”
RCE was designed and tested in Australia to measure the strength (or weakness) of TV spots. How many people saw or heard the ads or whether the audience was able to determine the advertiser and the take-away message will provide advertisers with almost “real-time” data they can then use to readjust their tactics such as:
In just over a week, agencies will be able to view data in order to evaluate effectiveness or lack thereof, ensuring clients get the biggest bang for their buck.
While advertising “gurus” have bandied back and forth as to the fairness or plausibility of the VBC model, companies, such as Coca Cola, have already put it into action. In truth, it’s the most equitable payment arrangement; agencies require media vendors to prove their performance. Why shouldn’t clients require the same from their agencies?
Nielsen’s new software is just another step in the ongoing evolution of the industry.
Jeff Louis has over ten years of brand-building, media strategy, and new business experience. His passion is writing, while his strong suit seems to be sarcasm. You can follow Jeff on Twitter or become a fan on Examiner.com.
This week, Fox Sports and Burger King drew ire for an offensive animated segment poking fun at Jessica Simpson’s weight. The segment, aside from being in bad taste, was beyond insulting to women of all ages. Both Fox and Burger King have issued apologies to Simpson, but it may be too little too late, pointing out, yet again, that making fun of a woman’s weight is still acceptable, especially when done in a chest-thumping manner.
It doesn’t stop there. Ralph Lauren was also under fire this week for a print ad that was photoshopped to ridiculous proportions — the model’s head appears to be about twice the size of her pelvis. When called to the carpet, this is what Lauren had to say:
“For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately.”
Apparently, quality, integrity, and brand standards are quite slim. The model, size 4, 120-pound, 5-foot-10 Filippa Hamilton, claims she was fired in April for being “too fat.”
Meanwhile, German magazine Brigitteannounced they would only use “realistic” women in their magazine from now on instead of professional models, prompting Chanel uberdesigner Karl Lagerfeld to pronounce that no one wanted to see “curvy” women and that only “fat mothers” object to thin models, despite the overwhelming approval of American fashionistas to plus-size model Lizzie Miller’s nude photo in Glamour last August, as well as the success of Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty.” To me, as well as many other women, healthy always trumps skeletal.
It bothers me that it’s 2009, and we’re still talking about body-image distortion in advertising. True, I could point out how these ads contribute to eating disorders and low self esteem, but what bothers me more than anything is that this standard is still only applied to women. These archaic standards still say that fat (ie: larger than a size 4, which is a standard sample size) equals lazy, sloppy, and unworthy of respect and basic human dignity, despite studies showing that an average American woman wears a size 14. There has to be a balance somewhere between art and commerce; a size 16 woman’s money is as legal tender as a size 2’s, is it not?
Sara Barton is a copywriter, social media strategist, and avid blogger in search of her next opportunity. Contact her via Twitter, LinkedIn, or her blog.
Life just keeps getting weirder and weirder. One day, boobs are good; the next, they’re banned in Britain on billboards for their portrayal of headlamps. Britain is the last place you would think the girls would be put away. Britain is (in)famous for its portrayal of plunging-cleavage shots on TV shows such as “Benny Hill” and “Ab Fab” (”Absolutely Fabulous”), but is also the same country that publishes topless women weekly in newspapers, notably, The Sun’s “Page 3 Girls,” and the Daily Star’s “Babes”
While both of the papers are entertainment and celebrity gossip-type tabloids, they’re given huge amounts of leeway with topless models. However, other nude or semi-nude ads seem to spark controversy: Last month, American Apparel ran a print ad that took readers through unzipping a Flex Fleece Hoodie. The model eventually gets to point where a portion of her nipple is exposed. The ad ran in Vice Magazine, caused public outcry, and was banned subsequently.
Whether right or wrong (and I have no stance on British standards in advertising), the only difference I detect between the topless shots in the papers versus the questionable billboard is that the billboard is free while the papers require payment or subscription.
What’s all the hoopla about with this billboard campaign? It’s not any more or less, racy than a Victoria’s Secret ad or outdoor display.
Understandably, there are regulations to ensure no young minds are corrupted by breasts and marketers’ efforts to use breasts to sell stuff, and we’re well aware of the fact that sexually based ads and campaigns sell. This leads to the dilemma of morality and advertising, which is way too big to cover here.
However, my question is this: Whether used to sell headlamps in Britain or promote men’s awareness of breast cancer in North America, is it a fair advertising practice to approve or deny an ad based on the intent of the advertiser?
Rethink Breast Cancer’s spot, “Save the Boobs,” (below) follows a voluptuous woman in a bikini as she bounces her way through a swimming area.
Does this commercial merit approval based on the fact it supports a cause that could save a life, whereas the banned billboards are for headlights? Not using your headlights while driving could kill you, so don’t headlights save lives, too?
I would argue that if society’s intent is save the youth from corruption, both ads should be banned.
Here is where it gets weird: The headlight ad seems to succeed in purpose where the breast cancer spot fails. Why? Inciting controversy was the whole idea behind the cancer spot; stir people up, get them to react, get the spot on the news, and thereby raise awareness. Besides receiving accolades as being a great PSA by every 16-year-old with an Internet connection, it made but a ripple. The billboard got banned. Go figure.
Jeff Louis has ten years of brand-building, media strategy, and new business experience. His passion is writing and his strong suit is sarcasm. You can follow Jeff on Twitter or become a fan on Examiner.com.
Michelin launched its first global advertising campaign last week to shine its headlights on Michelin’s USP high beams, illuminating the many
benefits derived from its distinguishing characteristics. Its theme, “The right tire changes everything,” aims to drive this point home.
Michelin tires simultaneously deliver enhanced braking power, greater longevity, and superior fuel efficiency. The campaign illustrates by using the right tires, consumers can reduce fuel consumption, increase safety, and extend tread life.
The campaign features the iconic Michelin man, Bibendum, in an animated world, assisting troubled motorists and replacing their defective tires with Michelin tires, which he pulls from his body. I know what you’re thinking: Why can’t I get rid of the tires around my waist as easily as Bibendum? To answer that, you’ll have to take the advice of Esurance’s ad campaign, and “get animated.” Bibendum apparently has all the answers.
Created by TBWA, a New York-based agency that gained Michelin’s worldwide account last summer, Michelin’s campaign will appear across TV, print, and online outlets in the United States first, then in Europe and Asia in early 2010, and in Africa, the Middle East, India, and South America at a later date. The U.S. campaign features an enhanced digital strategy that introduces the official Michelin Man Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Visit michelinman.com/the-right-tire for more information.
Rohan Raj. Syrupy schmaltz. Finessing perpetual cadence. Boundless behemoth. Absence of mutual exclusivity? Priceless. Reach him via Twitter or LinkedIn.
In case you were unaware, the competition for the 2016 Olympics host city’s been won and the waiting is over.
It was a controversial ride, but in the end, Chicago got knocked out immediately and Rio de Janiero was bestowed the honor, marking the first time a South American country’s been chosen to host an Olympic Games. The news is bittersweet in Chicago; the city was split 54% For, 46% Against according to recent polls. The city’s debt, added traffic on over-burdened streets, and additional taxes were main contention points that kept Chicagoans from supporting the bid. Plus the knowledge that recent host’s were still paying off Olympic-sized debt.
Skepticism rose to National levels last week when President Barack Obama, and wife Michelle, agreed to attend the final stage of the Olympic pitch in Oslow, adding their political weight to a field filled with political, and royal, notables: A King and Queen (Madrid), Prime Minister (Tokyo), and another President (Rio).
Competition between Rio and Chicago was especially fierce, and accusations of unfair play were voiced by both sides: One of the larger controversies a website Chicagoans for Rio 2016. The Chicago Olympic Bid team accused Rio of setting up the site (makes sense), but it turned out that it was an inside job…really inside.
Meanwhile, a Chicagoan named Kevin Lynch is confessing that he’s the man behind the cheeky ChicagoansForRio.com, the Web site that’s been anonymously trashing Chicago’s prospects in the past couple of weeks.
Okay, so he was from Chicago. No biggie. The real impact of the story is that Kevin Lynch is one of the top creative execs at Energy BBDO’s Proximity Unit. Energy BBDO, and owner Omnicom, were both in support of Chicago’s bid for the games, providing creative services as part of their endorsement. Plus, there’s the fact that Energy BBDO’s largest client, Wrigley (Wrigley Field, Wrigley Gum, etc), supported the city’s bid.
Which led to “Drama, drama, drama”! Energy BBDO released a statement to Ad Age last week:
“I want to be clear: The agency is and has been fully behind the Chicago 2016 bid,” said Energy BBDO CEO Tonise Paul. “Our clients are aware of our position and understand the situation. The individual acted on his own accord without the agency’s knowledge.”
Kevin Lynch, the “instigator” of the controversy, said he had stopped supporting the Olympic bid for Chicago when Mayor Daley’s statements that Chicagoans wouldn’t be taxed for the games were reversed. (Chicago already carries the heaviest sales tax in the Nation at 10.25%.)
Now that the host city’s been decided, it will be at least a week to discover what becomes of Mr. Lynch…
Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Brand Project Manager, blogger, and aspiring writer. Please leave a comment or contact him on Twitter. As always, thanks for reading!
I just finished watching a Twitter reality-show pitch, and I have to say, I’m interested. The reality show, @whoisthebaldguy, has viewers following him on Twitter and making suggestions on what he should do next. It’s a great concept and could be the wave of the future for entertainment, leaving traditional TV in the dust.
Facebook has had some similar shows broadcast, as well. The first made-for-Facebook series, Ashton Kutcher’s KatalystHQ, debuted in February, detailing the day-to-day events happening at Kutcher’s production firm, Katalyst Media.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the show is the traditional integration of products, such as Cheetos and Hot Pockets. According to an article on Real-Time Advertising Week, Kutcher opined that when product placement is done in funny and tasteful ways “people are happy to consume it.”
I can’t help but feel we are getting closer and closer to making a real-life version of The Truman Show.
Both of these new shows could signify the end of television as we know it and put advertising in a whole new, but good, ball game. Where will this lead us? We’ll just have to wait and see.
Megan Green is a freelance propagation planner who has had her work published on PR News Wire, as well as many other outlets. Contact her on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, or at megankategreen@gmail.com.
For client UPS, agency Doner and production firm Psyop imagine a helpless protagonist braving the challenges of a cardboard world to meet a deadline. The ability to print remotely liberates him in the end.
Australia’s Kettle Chips tries its hand at self-aware gratuitous advertising — the trick’s that’s fast become a must-do for any brand that wants to demonstrate it’s down with savvy ad-saturated users.
Brazilian retailer Lilica Ripilica, which is like a more palatable Limited Too, is embarking on an effort under a new tagline: “Enchantment.”
I have been applying to various agencies, consulting firms, digital design houses, and the like, and one of the so-called Human Resources’ policies has moved on my “corporate irritation scale” from irk’d off to pissed off. For the sake of this writing, I include only the personnel departments at advertising, marketing, online agencies, vendors, and companies as the places I’ve been focusing upon.
When did it become standard for HR Departments to determine they need not respond to applicants? Doesn’t this seem a bit counterproductive, especially at a time when companies are refocusing their entire efforts on personalizing relationships, speaking to their audiences on a one-to-one basis?
During the past year, many professionals have been let go, from C-level executives on down. Thus, there’s been a glut of qualified pros searching. As a professional, when I fill out an application and submit my résumé (usually using Taleo or some other third-party vendor), a cover letter, and samples in a nice package, it’s indicative I either know your company well and am an “enthusiast,” or I’ve researched it enough to realize there’s strong potential for both parties to match on various levels, creating a win-win situation.
Thus, I submit what’s required when I apply at XYZ. Not two seconds later, I receive an e-mail stating that after review, if my qualifications are a match, I may hear from someone. Otherwise, due to the volume of applicants, I will not hear another word. First off, this is not only rude, but belittling. I have 11 years experience, and if I qualify, you may contact me? I cut my chops. I have respected your requests, filled out your paper in addition to submitting my own, and you “may” get back to me? It’s at this point I regret applying, job or no job.
A week passes.
I call the office switchboard. I’m dumped into the HR general voicemail. No once calls back. Knowing I already have no contacts within the organization, I try to figure out if there is another way to get past the wall of silence. I begin to dial the main number with a ploy to speak to the Marketing VP I just looked up on LinkedIn.
While waiting, I wonder what’s transpired. Is the job closed? How many applicants applied? Are they still accepting applications? Was my résumé submitted correctly? Was there something that screamed out I was wrong for the position? Did I make it to the final first cut, only to be weeded out due to my salary requirements?
I leave a voicemail for the VP. After a couple weeks without contact, I make a note on my spreadsheet that no one ever responded and move on to another opportunity.
Social media
Surprisingly, I see a lot of HR people using social media, especially on LinkedIn, Twitter, and blogs. To me, this states that HR departments are versed in basic social-media tenets:
- Listen.
- Ask questions.
- Listen some more.
- Initiate on-to-one communication.
HR departments use social media to recruit. Why then is it so difficult to get anyone to respond? Why do I have to call the VP of Marketing to get a response, knowing at this point my job hopes have just been shot down?
HR peeps I know say it’s due to the massive amount of résumés they receive, and they’re too busy.I have to say this is a cop out.
Everyone is busy, everyone does more with less, and times are tense. However, most people at a business (with one exception) cannot risk ignoring anyone who contacts them, especially in an industry as fickle as this one.
As HR is capable of using social media for recruiting, then why not use social media to keep job posts updated?
It’s efficient, simple, and effective. Set up a blog page with job updates. Send out Twitter updates that a position’s been filled. Write a Facebook App that will cross-reference a job number with a status update. Have a prerecorded job line that applicants can call to learn of any updates.
Problem Solved.
Jeff Louis: Media Planner, Brand Project Manager, blogger, and aspiring writer. Please leave a comment or follow him on Twitter. As always, thanks for reading.
As the death knell sounds for the evening news, there may be a few culprits to blame who have gone unmentioned. One of them is advertising.
This is not because ad rates have dropped for evening news shows or because demographics have skewed to older viewers. Simply put, the ads that run during the evening news are unwatchable.
No fewer than 90% of the commercials that run during the three major network broadcasts are for prescription drugs, with the vast majority targeting an audience over 50 years-old. No one enjoys watching these commercials, so one must change the channel to escape. Inevitably, one switches the channel to another network’s news broadcast in time to view a different prescription-drug ad. Basically, one ends up changing channels three or four times during a break to avoid an ad for one-a-day (insert prescription drug here).
It becomes tedious.
Beyond the notion of why prescription-drugs ads were ever allowed on television, to have these dominate the nightly news broadcasts comes off as giving up on ever reaching younger audiences again. What is really happening here: The evening news is actually pushing younger people away, not to mention some older ones as well, who’d rather not watch these commercials either.
These are the kinds of things just may be killing off the evening news. Competition from cable and the Internet, etc. are part of the story, but they may be just that, part of it.
Garth Meyer is a copywriter and former columnist/newspaper reporter in Oregon. Contact him at: garthmeyer@att.net.
Just how many advertising messages are we exposed to on a daily basis? In Data Smog, author David Skenk writes that the average American’s exposure to advertising has grown from “560 daily advertising messages in 1971. By 1997, that number had increased to over 3,000 per day.”
While the figures are controversial due to the definition of the word “advertising,” even 200 hundred messages a day is more than we’ll remember. Be thankful for that, because most of them are crap that shouldn’t have made it past the concept stage.
While the number of victims stricken by “Crapvertising” is unknown, there is a place where those who have fallen prey can expose the offender(s): The Tracy Awards. Based on the premise that advertisers produce a lot of ”bad ads,” the First Annual Tracy Awards are accepting submissions for the Worst in Advertising 2009. Its call to action:
“There’s a lot of bad advertising out there. Let’s make fun of it.”
Noted as the first competition of its kind, The Tracy’s provide those exposed to terrible advertising an opportunity “strike back” at advertisers who produce crap. The press release goes on to explain:
Every ad we receive will be judged. Harshly. And if it’s bad enough, it will win a Tracy, which will be sent to the people responsible for creating the abomination in the first place. Plus, all ads that win Tracy’s will be nationally publicized as the Worst Advertising of 2009.
The Tracy Awards were conceived by Salt Lake City ad agency Crowell Advertising and are named for agency founder, Tracy Crowell.
Take a few minutes to view the crap or submit some. If you are like me, making fun of others’ work will make the day so much better.
Jeff Louis: Media Planner, Brand Project Manager, blogger, and aspiring writer. Please leave a comment or follow him on Twitter. As always, thanks for reading.
Football is here, the glorious season of games, players, stadiums, grill-outs, and beer. What many people don’t realize is that it’s also the beginning of the newest advertising campaigns. Yes, we all know that the Superbowl is a haven for new, witty commercials, but what about the rest of the season?
You may be surprised to know that many of the greatest commercial campaigns have been started during football games during the typical season, and for advertising companies, this is the perfect time to showcase their top A-game commercials (pun intended).
Football is something everyone watches, and it’s seen as a reason for everyone to get together. This makes it the perfect time not only to target an audience, but to also reach out to even more people that may not usually be interested in your product.
Take, for example, the coming of the Geico caveman. More than likely, this first commercial was aimed at men (hello, caveman?!), but because it was broadcast during football, female viewers also saw this commercial and found it funny. It was witty, unique, and most importantly, it started a conversation.
I know what you’re thinking – Wait, guys don’t watch commercials, they flip through channels on breaks – but hold on, they do watch commercials when they don’t want to miss those first few moments after the break when the game comes back on, especially if a call or penalty will be made. What better time to target that demographic?
Probably one of the most notable commercials broadcast during football season is Budweiser’s frogs. Remember? “Bud. Weis. Errrr.” An epic commercial. And because everyone watches, the campaign can then expand and become bigger, targeting those who didn’t catch the game or those who don’t watch football (weird, but true). There was a plethora of Budweiser frog commercials after that aired, it was so huge. It also prompted other talking animals – Quiero Taco Bell, anyone?
A few things to remember when airing or planning to air a commercial during football is this:
Let me end this post with this one remark: plan a commercial or new campaign during football season, and it’s sure to be a touchdown (I didn’t say it wasn’t cheesy).
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
