Remember Gillette? There they were, sitting pretty, with three of the most idolised, near-perfect examples of sportsmanship, talent and masculinity you could find: Tiger Woods, Thierry Henry and Roger Federer. What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, that thing with the infidelity. Oh, and that handball thing. You shudder to think what may be next for Federer. So there’s a lesson to be learnt there surely? But unfortunately, thanks to sponsorship deals, the fates of mega-brands and their mega-stars remain inextricably linked. Which is fantastic if your chosen star goes on to conquer the world. Not so fantastic if everything suddenly goes tits up. Particularly if your nearest competitor is lurking in the wings. So this pastiche of the new Nike ad (which was amazing to be fair) has an air of inevitability about it in the light of what happened to Nike’s sporting stars in the World Cup. And when you consider the fact that Germany are the flagship Adidas brand spokespeople, then they must have been rubbing their hands in glee when the 4th goal flew in. Here it is then. Not sure if it was officially sanctioned, but you suspect the hand of Adidas in there somewhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZeyYZauOsI
Addendum: This has since been removed from the airwaves…mmm, maybe Nike can’t take a joke?
Little did he know that when he posted a video of himself showcasing his Jedi skills, it was the first step on a path to internet stardom – yes, it’s Star Wars Kid. We’ve seen loads of hilarious internet memes over the years. And there’s still something glorious and life-affirming about how humanity, in all its diversity, can quickly come together via the internet to share a joke. Not everyone’s laughing though. Downfall is a recent cracker that eventually, was removed by those with the power (what happened to YouTube being free?). The same may be happening to Sad Keanu too, so enjoy while you can. But it’s interesting to see that Star Wars Kid is still attracting new interpretations. So let’s have a very quick wander down memory lane and see how one boy’s moment of fantasy evolved, thanks to the power of the internets. (I do hope he wasn’t permanently scarred by the ordeal).
The Original (Over 17,000,000 hits on this clip)
With SFX.
Versus Animated Yoda
Versus Saruman
In Plasticine
And finally: an ironic, post-modern low-fi epitaph (a labour of love for someone with distinct nerdish qualities)
There’s a recurrent theme on the Ad industry blogs these days. The general feeling seems to be that TV ads aren’t as surprising (read ‘engaging’) as they used to be. They’ve become predictable and conservative. Consumers are rarely intrigued and delighted by what they see. To illustrate this, let’s think about the Gorilla. Yes, him with the drumsticks. Now, no matter what you think about its strategy or relevance, it’s not just within Advertising circles that it stood out. I bet if you asked any member of the public which TV ad springs to mind from the last few years, 7 out of 10 consumers would prefer it. There’s a simple explanation too. It surprised people. It defied convention. People sat down expecting to see the usual fare and instead were dished up something totally unpredictable and intriguing.
So why, when asked to name something similar over the past few years, would we struggle to think of many other examples? What’s gone wrong? Advertising used to be a creative maverick, the wild child that didn’t play by the rules. Now it’s just the apologetic fellow in the pin-stripe suit who drives a saloon and plays squash at the weekend (no offence to any formally attired squash-playing saloon-driving readers). You can blame it on the shift in power between agency and client. You can blame it on research directing ads rather than just informing them (though to be fair, research has been in the industry since the 1950s). You can ascribe it to the fact there we’re all subjected to communications on thousands of different channels these days as opposed to two or three. You can even blame it on the recession. But who cares what or who’s to blame? More importantly, what can we do?
It seems to me that the future for TV ads lies in three areas: clients, consumers and (somewhat confusingly when you talk about TV ads), Digital. Firstly, the more clients that commit to doing something truly engaging, and enjoy the success it brings, the more others will want to follow suit. Secondly, Digital – often pitched as TV’s adversary – could ironically be its saviour too. The advent of Digital allows us to place filmed content online – not just in the middle ad break during Fair City. It’s less regulated too. So your big idea might be expressed in a much more daring way online than it is in other media. Lastly, Digital allows consumers to have a bigger say in the development of creative ideas. Not just literally in the advent of crowd-sourcing, but in the way we now receive instant feedback to our ads. The water-cooler is now the blog or the social media site. So if something doesn’t work, we know about it a few seconds later.
As we know from current research, although TV no longer enjoys the dominance it once had, it’s still one of the most effective ways to get your message across. So it would be a shame to see TV ads slowly sink into a repetitive and dull dotage.
So to conclude, consider this: a TV ad from an interesting character called Tom Rubnitz. It’s not real of course. But I would love to see the reaction were something similar to be screened. It’s certainly surprising (warning: contains extremely camp scenes). *Relevance v Gratuitousness to be discussed at a later date.
Advertising Awards – you’ve got to love them haven’t you? Well maybe not. But if you don’t like them or value them, you’re probably in the minority. Creatives like them because they feed their egos. If they’re lucky, they can use them to justify pay rises. They also look good on CVs and help secure moves up the ladder. Plus they get to go on stage and for a nano-second, feel valued, successful and important.
Creative Directors like them because it reflects well on them: one of their main responsibilities is to ensure that the agency produces the best possible creative work. Apart from consumer research/sales figures, the only other yardstick we have for measuring advertising success is awards. So if work wins awards, then that’s validation of their contribution.
Suits like them because it also reflects well on them professionally. ‘I was in charge of the award-winning *Insert Brand account’ certainly sounds more impressive with the addition of the ‘A’ word.
And clients like them because, again, it reflects well on them. More cynical creatives will say that work wins awards despite clients. But without wanting to veer into sycophancy, our experience points to the fact that if you have a healthy client-agency relationship based on mutual trust and respect, then awards are usually forthcoming.
And even if you don’t like awards for any of those reasons, then at the very least, it’s an opportunity to get dressed up and go and drink yourself silly without having to put your hand in your pocket.
But hang on one minute I hear you say. All that may be very well but they count for nothing. They’re irrelevant. What really matters is that work gets results. ROI. Bums on seats. Punters through the door. Advertising should ultimately be measured by the effect it has on the bottom line.
So I present you with the latest research on the subject. We’ve seen similar studies that highlight the link between work that wins awards and work that’s commercially successful. But this latest in-depth report (it analysed work over an 8 year span) concludes that ‘ads that win creative awards are 11 times more efficient at delivering business success than those that don’t.’
It’s certainly grist to the agency mill. Doing work that’s original and different and creative gets results – for everyone involved. Someone once said that the only Advertising that works is either brilliant or terrible. All the stuff inbetween goes in one ear and out the other. But it’s the brave, the interesting and creative work that gets results. Or the stuff that’s remembered for being so atrocious, it’s brilliant (oxymoronic, but true). Which would you rather be associated with?
By the way, did we mention that Chemistry is one of the most highly-awarded agencies in Ireland? Read the article here.
Following in the tradition of marrying stars from the world of sport with bookmakers, here’s a new viral ad for BetPack.com featuring Alex Ferguson. The ad was produced by Jumper and directed by Sophy Merry; perhaps best known for her ‘Groovy Dancing Girl’ videos which have attracted over 6 million hits! I think we’d be happy with a fraction of that. If you fancy a flutter on the World Cup (or any other sporting event for that matter) BetPack.com are offering some fantastic free bet incentives and other specials.
