The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

Between Rob and Andy I think every single issue with this commercial and Singaporean advertising has been covered with a few additional lessons for the rest of adland thrown in. And you’re right Rob, “days with my father” represents more emotion in one picture than this ad could achieve even if it ran for 3 hours rather than 3 minutes.

everything that is terrible about this ad has already been covered. and yes, i think it is very terrible. when i saw it i thought it was some tasteless joke. especially as it had been posted on youtube on 1st april…
i think the spot is so very shallow and out of taste. i can t imagine that someone who has just lost a loved one stands there at the funeral talking in that way about the one he/she has lost. there are for sure other things you got on your mind instead of wanting to talk about not very flattering imperfections. and then it is farts? oh please! this ad does not feel right for me. no authenticity. if you want to talk about love, why not think about respect first. i don t see any in this…

furthermore, the farting bit seems to be inspired by ‘good will hunting’. but there the fart thing was in a different setting, timeframe and context… i don t know why some might say this spot is brave. because that woman talks about old farts during a funeral in a government ad?.. i could go on, because it gets me raging. it really does. i don t know why… but i guess i should go ahead with writing an overdue email…

I agree with everything everyone has said. It does seem like a cheap idea to go with the whole “love your family whilst you have the opportunity to”… i mean, no fucking shit!

BUT i did show the girl who sits next to me in the office and she started crying. Andy, you’ll be happy to know I consoled her 😉

ha, you idiot. she’s alright. probably a 2/10 on your scale though.

Just curious and picking up on lee’s remark: are their major problems in Singapore relating to the issue of family disintergration?

Well I am glad that it seems the general consensus to this ad has been as I hoped/expected.

I also think Ed’s comment is very pertenant … though to be fair it’s not just the Singaporean Government who use fear to sell ‘love’ – I’ve said for years that’s what Valentine’s Day really has been flogging for years, ha!

In answer to your question Niko – yes it has, but not to the extent of other countries – though as Lee suggested, it has been influenced as much by the policies of the government as it has the evolution of Singaporean society.

What I mean is that by having education policies that celebrate, focus and reward materialism, it is pushing people [and families] to chase the caah rather than simple happiness … hence in many cases, the simple act of ‘family’ is being relegated in importance.

Of course I’m generalising – not everyone is like this, infact maybe the minority – but whilst filial responsibility is alive and well in Asia [as it is in parts of Europe] their is a growing new generation of Singaporean who sees their role in looking after their parents as simply paying for their domestic help rather than having them live with them or spending considerable time with them, which was/is the norm.

Whereas a strong family bond was regarded as a persons ‘fortune’ – the influence of ‘chasing the dollar’ has led to more people seeing family as a ‘cost’ or an ‘investment’.

It’s not just the younger generation who are being changed … we now see a lot of parents send their kids to foreign universities … not because they think they’ll get a better education or get better prospects, but because they think it will reflect better on them as parents.

The bonds of family are definitely there … but its changing … and whilst is might seem bad to the Singaporen Government [who ultimately don’t want people having their own ‘ideas’] the fact is it’s they who should look at the attempted message of this ad rather than the society who – by hook or by crook – are doing a far better job of keeping the bonds alive despite all the external influence and pressure.

well that seemed to stir up the ants nest. Excellent!

it would it be funny if there was a mag/site/digimag on the market that focused indeed on the parents as stars and put them in the spotlight. this could be a confronting and satirical way of proving that singaporean peeps or parental peeps in general are losing sight of what is important.

Imagine a mag that celebrates parents as being smart for sending kids out of home to boarding school and talking about the pressures of showing up other parents etc..if it sold out then you could start a debate about the wrong values..

kinda like borat/the onion for parents..

be funny to me

I’m with Lauren here in not finding this particularly offensive – the idea of missing someone’s bad points as an indicator of love is pretty powerful, albeit far from original. Yes it’s schmaltzy, yes it goes on and on and yes it’s ultimately unengaging.

But the real issue for me is, as Lee says, not simply when did Billy have insights but also why you would try to promote “family” though this or indeed any advertising medium?

If “Real bravery – at least in adland – should come across as sound logic”, then you can’t promote something as illogical/random as family in this way.

I should point out that I – and I’m assuming everyone else who said a similar thing – don’t find the commercial offensive interms of it being sick, but interms of [1] the Government having to promote family love [2] the Government thinking an ad would promote family love and [3] some people think it is effective and brave.

As for the JITB ad … it’s brilliant but some of the others in the series were even better … but then its creators, Cliff Freeman & Partners, were – to me at least – the most exciting agency in the World at one point [think Mother & Crispin rolled into one] and I am still sad that [1] I didn’t get to work there [3 interviews and then the big fat “no” and [2] they didn’t go on to achieve the acclaim other agencies now enjoy despite not having half the standard of work they produced.

I should do a post on agencies of greatness … show these whippersnappers that before Crispin and WK, there were a whole host of agencies that were doing brilliant work. I find it funny that so many people think “exciting creative” only started in 2002!

Hello Zahn … are you a police officer because your attention to detail is amazing.

I think the best way to answer your comment is to say that you should scroll up till you see a comment by a guy called ‘Billy Whizz’ … I think he has a theory that explains it all perfectly. 🙂

PS: Hope you and Ed come back soon … but something tells me you’ve got more sense than that, ha!

And include papert koenig lois

I don’t blame your client for thinking you were a recovering alcoholic. I’ve just read your comment and you sound like someone who has just fallen off the wagon. Are you OK?

Good afternoon.

speaking of having too much caffeine…

here’s what it really says: i never thought id say this but i think a spell in mountain view is in order

and what i thought it said: i never thought id say this but i think a spell on the mountain dew is in order.

Turns out we were talking about another Rob Campbell.

“There are some great ads that can move people in 30 seconds … ads that change how people fundamentally feel and think”

no.

youre right marcus, they have to be 40 seconds or they leave people feeling like wet fucking blankets

not sure what s goin on over here. i heard they put something in the water. must be caffeine then : )

No need to talk like that to Peggy Andy.

I”ve posted about it Rob but given that 90% of advertising doesn’t even get to the ‘water-cooler’ stage then I think it’s heading in the right direction if it’s being spoken about.

That aside both you and I have more experience of Sinagaporeans than most here so I’ll take you through more of why I think it’s socially constructive as opposed to a waste of money.

The traffic is very busy today. 🙂

I haven’t seen your post yet Charles and I agree with you that starting conversations are important (after all that’s what we say cynic does) but unless the issue is something that is not talked about or has a low public interest, then just having a strategic goal of creating conversation seems rather simplistic.

The reason I say this is because you could claim talkability can be achieved by Robert’s infamous ‘naked man having sex with a frozen chicken running down the street’ so where does watercooler value start and where does it end.

Finally, does anyone know if this ad is getting positive public feedback. Maybe I’ve misunderstood but I thought Robert was referring to the Singaporean ad industries comments.

Sorry Pete. Bashing stuff out so quickly this morning you might think that wasn’t a reply but it is 🙂

Sorry for being out of this – was actually doing some work. I know, amazing eh!

I totally get what Charles is saying – sometimes there are situations/scenarios where the best course of action is to get ‘talkability’ around an issue … however I also agree with Pete that too often this is the justification agencies come up with to do ‘creative’ rather than fundamentally address the problem.

In this case of what the Singaporean Government are trying to do, I don’t think an ad will ever affect change … especially as many of these problems are a byproduct of Government policy for the last 40+ years.

Not only that, but I don’t even know if this ad is getting talked about by Singaporeans and even if it is, I don’t know if the conversations taking place will always be positive because as much as you think I’m a moaning minnie, one of the things Singaporeans are World Class at, is complaining.

The old adage is “there’s only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about” … well I think there’s a lot of examples where you could argue that fact quite easily and I reckon Gary Glitter would be one of my biggest advocates, ha.

Put it this way, if LKY had made a speech saying he felt the values of ‘family’ were being impacted [which knowing how Singapore works, is probably the real driving force behind this campaign] I KNOW it would of got much wider press coverage, opened up real debates within communities and families and cost absolutely sod all.

For me Lee summed it up best …

“All signs point to this being another government department paying lip service to a social problem because they don’t wish to acknowledge their own role in its deterioration.”

but what do I know? I’m shit (literally) apparently.

Hi, as usual, I am joining the party as the guests are about to leave.
A couple of comments from somebody who does not work in adland. So, as a layman, I watched it and I found it, in typical SG fashion, surgically moving. But, once over, I was wondering ‘whats the fracking point?’ I understand this is the way the government tries to stay relevant and communicate a certain message, but I am wondering ‘If I were Singaporean, what would be my action points upon watching it?’ It seems to work too much at a subliminal level.
It works well in Singapore, because the majority does not like to think, does not want to think. The government has done it for them for the past 30 years, so why change?!
Rob, if your earlier comment on this ad being a ‘warning’ against the disintegration of society, then the government is walking a dangerous path. I hope they are not really claiming that disintegration of society is really another evil aspect of progress, so lets go back to the good old fifties, sixties, seventies (pick your era!).
Actually, some of the pundits’ comments about the light touch of the ad seem too harsh. I agree that if that is the best you can say in a eulogy, then you should have divorced your partner way back. But I can also see it working from the perspective of ‘hey, I want to say something meanignful, but my kids are so distraught that I’d better resort to some humor….’
What actually struck me about the ‘funny’ ad is that, as a generalization (do forgive me!), I find Singaporeans extremely unfunny. I have been to plays and movies here with my wife to invariably notice how the locals often dont laugh at something that is seriously funny or, even weirder, laugh at things that are definitely, absolutely NOT funny.
So, I was surprised when I saw this ad, especially when I compare it against another recent campaign which asked drivers to be more careful (actually I dont bloody know what the point of that campaign was…) with several people of different races and ages pop up and say “Hi, my name is Leon, I am 27, watch out for me,” a commercial which was as engaging as a pre-Capello era England football match.
The ad works well in Singapore, because they are inward-looking and don’t want to look at what lies outside their island. All members of the blog are extremely critical because they are either expats or are locals who enjoyed an eye-opening exposure: in the end nothing really changes.
Cheers

Even if we don’t know what “work” actually means.

Pete,
Hate generalizations. My point about not liking to think has to do with the fact that many here accept whatever the powers-that-be tell them at face value. Undeniably, it makes life easy and convenient on a level. Not trying to offend anybody.

Andy,
It is perhaps more ‘entertaining’ than other ads, but still whats its point?! I would like to show this ad to 10 people who have never lived in SG and ask them what they think the message is about. But this is a pointless exercise, as it is only aimed at the domestic market.