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


About As Motivating As A Turd On A Stick …
April 10, 2008, 7:33 am
Filed under: Comment

I like Ice Cream.

I really like Magnums.

And I really, really like Eva Longoria.

So how come these elements have all come together to create a giant heaving turd of an ad campaign?

Maybe it’s because it’s so terrible that it’s not on Youtube yet, so to have a look, click here.

Anyway, before I have my rant, here’s what the person behind the ad say’s …

Anna Ford, Magnum Brand Manager says:

“The Mayan Mystica campaign starring Eva Longoria is set to be huge. Not only do we have an amazingly indulgent TV advert but we also have eye-catching posters on billboards all around the UK.

This combination is sure to drive consumers into store seeking Mayan Mystica. Retailers need to ensure that they stock up to meet the demand that this campaign will create for not only Mayan Mystica, and also the entire irresistible Magnum”

God bless her, such a sterling selling job – and you have to be impressed that she managed to throw in so many ‘brand attribute words’ like INDULGENT and IRRESISTIBLE however it does beg two questions …

1 Is she the Anna Ford who used to read the news on ITN?
2 What the fuck is she going on about?

Putting aside question one because lets be honest, who cares – lets jump to the “WHAT THE FUCK IS SHE GOING ON ABOUT?” bit …

Amazingly indulgent TV advert?

A combination that is sure to drive consumers into store seeking Mayan Mystica.

Retailers need to ensure that they stock up to meet the demand that this campaign will create.

Maybe she’s seen a different commercial to the one I’ve just watched because it’s not really ‘indulgent’ and it’s not really going to drive consumers wild either.

Why?

Well lets look at the premise of the commercial shall we?

Apparently Eva Longoria is an explorer who enters a mystical Mayan temple looking to unlock the secret of pure ice cream indulgence.

Hahahahahahaha!

Why the fuck would she do that? Was she on a break from Desperate Housewives?

And putting my oh-so-rational hat on for a moment, if she’s an explorer why is she dressed in that outfit … and if it’s a mystical Mayan temple why is there a fuckload of people having a party there … and if she’s looking to unlock the secret of pure ice cream indulgence, why did she only have to go up the stairs?

It’s bollocks isn’t it.

Go on, admit it, it’s not just me is it? Is It?

I bet the agency flogged this to Magnum by saying it will have ‘synergy’ with the new Indiana Jones movie which is about to launch – but it won’t because this is shit and makes no fucking sense whereas that is great and will be exciting and imaginative.

It never ceases to amaze me how Unilever [who own Wall’s] can have such extremes in their communication.

On one level they can approve and make great campaigns like AXE/Lynx and then on the other they make bland bollocks like this.

This ad demonstrates the massive gulf in the quality of Unilever’s rostered agencies as well as the inconsistency of their marketing staff because not only is this passive advertising at its worse, it’s crazy to promote an ice-cream only using Television and Outdoor.

Lets face it, the only reason this ad will be noticed is because of Eva and to be honest, they could of saved themselves a fuckload of production cash by simply adopting the Asian communication mentality and paying her to say, “I eat Magnum”

The sad thing is people will buy it in the truckload – but I don’t think it’ll have too much to do with the ad – like Cadbury’s, Wall’s distribution is so strong that they can almost guarantee it will be successful because they can make retailers take the product whether they like it or not.

Then there’s the fact the UK is coming into it’s 5 days of summer …

It’s false effectiveness – but hey, no one is going to address that when there’s delusional industry back-slapping to enjoy.

36 Comments

36 Comments so far
Leave a comment

finally a post thats topical, well done campbell im impressed. not as impressed as that photo with evas arse up in the air but impressed all the same.

it pains me but i agree with everything you bitch about in this post. its a fucking terrible ad and an even more fucking terrible client justification.

there is fuck all reason to launch this ad and even less reason to buy the fucking product because it sounds like it tastes exactly like the basic magnum but with added fucking wanky name. its unilevers usual annual “new news” strategy which is running out of steam by the looks of it.

the contrast in approach to new variant launches is a good point and shows how being “unilever trained” means fuck all because they swing from great to fucking shit and even youre not thick enough to not know which side i think this ad is falling.

contrived fucking shit as seen on too many uk televisions and poster sites these days.

only using television and posters for an ice cream? says it all really. fucking wank.

Comment by andy@cynic April 10, 2008 @ 7:48 am

There’s something weird going on with the voice overs in that ad… it’s like the male voice cuts her off mid sentence or something. Notice it?

Fuck, I just saw who made it too 🙁

Comment by Age April 10, 2008 @ 7:52 am

yes age, its another fucking demand chain strategy shit from the organisation you are whoring yourself at. the scariest thing is i think fucking god is still residing in the big chair in their london office and when we were at hhcl, hed of fucking cut our balls off than allow this fucking shit out the door.

why are so many fucking clients total idiots? i know they just want to get through to their next promotion but dont they fucking get that this is going to slip them up? trouble is with their fucking distribution power theyre never going to fail so it just builds up more momentum for this type of fucking sugar coated crap.

and the voice over is wank

Comment by andy@cynic April 10, 2008 @ 7:58 am

Absolutely Age – “created a chocolate recipe that combined the most sublime flavours” makes you expect there to be a with – i.e. what they combined it with. It’s not grammatically incorrect but it’s one of those occassions when that which is correct just sounds odd (a bit like this blog). Somebody should have noticed that, but then they were probably transfixed by the indulgent, irresistable and evocative, central american lilt of a sodding flute in the background. You can just hear the arguments – pan-pipes are cliche, so we’ll go with something non-indigenous.

Comment by John April 10, 2008 @ 8:05 am

True, I’ve also noticed that a lot of clients in big organisations are happy to push the same old instead of really wanting to do something brave – I did a preso yesterday where I challenged the people in the room that our idea could be a defining moment for them, and if they chose to be brave and roll with it, it could help them leave a great legacy in the company.

Funny to notice how they seemed to switch on as soon as I showed them how much the idea could benefit their own personal endeavours just as much as the consumers.

Comment by Age April 10, 2008 @ 8:05 am

Yes Andy/Age, more of McCaan’s outrageously brilliant ‘Demand Strategy’ as detailed here …

[http://robcampbell.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/proprietary-shit-as-seen-in-your-agency/]

… or seen in more practice here …

[http://robcampbell.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/no-wonder-advertising-and-planning-is-losing-its-value/]

But on the bright side, I have an explanation why it’s all going so wrong [well, creatively why it’s going wrong, they’re winning shedloads of business from the World’s unimaginative]

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/653416/Rupert-Howell-exits-McCann-Erickson/

Thank God, I was worried even Rupert had been ‘turned’ for a moment 😉

Comment by Rob April 10, 2008 @ 8:06 am

“created a chocolate recipe that combined the most sublime flavours” and what fucking sublime flavours are they magnum, chocolate and fucking air with maybe a delicate infusion of wood stick?

fucking cocks.

Comment by andy@cynic April 10, 2008 @ 8:08 am

Chocolate is pleasure with Anti Eva.

Comment by John April 10, 2008 @ 8:31 am

thank fuck for that otherwise rupert would have lost his powers of intimidation over me

Comment by andy@cynic April 10, 2008 @ 8:32 am

I’d of bought fuckloads if the Magnum was called the ‘Eva Longoria’ – hell their “skin” colours are the same which is a damn site more relevant that the bollocks they’re spending millions of pounds on currently.

I can see the headline …

“Eva wants you to give her a good licking”

Comment by Rob April 10, 2008 @ 8:36 am

it makes a much better prop smartarse

Comment by andy@cynic April 10, 2008 @ 8:42 am

Oh dear, that really is terrible and I think you’re right Robert, the agency most likely did sell this concept by saying it would leverage the publicity for the new “Raiders” movie, which as everyone knows is a sure fire sign they don’t believe the ad will stand on its own two feet.

Comment by Pete April 10, 2008 @ 8:46 am

speaking of turd on a stick.. it’s pity they didn’t follow that train of thought, like the cadbury picnic ads from a while back (i could put a link in, but can’t be arsed tracking it) – ‘One Ugly Chocolate Bar’…

they could still have used eva longria, but as a hot chicky babe, who still loves the almond magnum, despite being ugly as sin. they’d have a bucketload of blokes on board identifying with the ugly icecream (wanting to be eaten by eva ha!), not to mention gals who would revel in ugliness being mainstream again. [which i think is pretty much the reasoning behind the picnic positioning by cadbury, before gorillas were hot accessories].

and age, condolences.

Comment by lauren April 10, 2008 @ 8:57 am

Look at Lauren jumping to the execution, hahaha!

I quite like the ‘women like personality’ idea, it would work for any ice cream that is either [1] ugly or [2] has plenty of layers.

Expect a Ben & Jerry’s campaign along those lines very soon Lauren – but it won’t be by you, oh no – we’ll say you simply “inspired” us … hell if WCRS can get away with it, we surely can, haha!

Great post you wrote about airports by the way – and no, that is not my attempt to ‘butter you up’, god how bad does that sound when you write it, ha!

And yes Age, our condolences 🙂

Comment by Rob April 10, 2008 @ 9:08 am

hey, i’m an artist, not a planner… let me jump to executions every once in a while, ok? 🙂

and you don’t have to justify stealing my idea – it’s in writing, with my name attached, my IP. it’ll stand up… 😛 mwhahaha!

and thanks for the props.. more on that later (when i’m not at work and can only justify a comms blog, not an art blog.. ha!)

Comment by lauren April 10, 2008 @ 9:15 am

You’re not Pollock – you actually think about the work you’re doing Lauren so don’t give me that “I’m just an artist” bollocks, ha!

Comment by Rob April 10, 2008 @ 9:18 am

oh, c’mon. i never get to pull that precocious artist bullshit – can’t i just INDULGE? ha!

Comment by lauren April 10, 2008 @ 9:30 am

Go for it dear Lauren – I’m sure even at your worst you can’t be as bad as one of the “but-I’m-an-artiste-darlink” tossers I have to deal with in WPPland 😉

Comment by Rob April 10, 2008 @ 9:37 am

Japan: where celebrities go to secretly sell their credibility.

This Magnum campaign isn’t terribly good but after the dressing down I got from Robert last night, maybe I shouldn’t be passing judgement.

Comment by Lee Hill April 10, 2008 @ 12:17 pm

can someone get some oxygen to george, hes finding it hard to breathe after reading campbell said nasty things to his favourite client last night.

Comment by andy@cynic April 10, 2008 @ 12:32 pm

Its probably just me but Eva looks like she’s packing some man sausage in that bikini pic…

Comment by Charles Frith April 10, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

Maybe she ate too many Magnum’s and has followed through Charles …

Comment by Rob April 10, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

Personally, I’ve always considered Mr. Hill to be a man of erudition, insight and compassion whose solid commercial instincts and humanitarian vision are to be applauded.

Comment by Mr. Economy Class. April 10, 2008 @ 4:40 pm

Personally, I’ve always considered Mr. Hill to be hot.

Comment by Marcus April 10, 2008 @ 4:47 pm

All of this because of ice cream…

Comment by fredrik sarnblad April 10, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

So there is a shit Magnum ad…well, has there ever been a good one? It’s just the same bullshit they do with every new creation. Though in Germany we had a really horrible one with women dancing in front of a Mayan temple, singing like neutered monks, holding their Magnum Mayan something up in the air. Horrible.

And I absolutely agree that Unilever is weird. The same people that do AXE/Lynx do horrible ads. Though maybe it AXE/Lynx exception.

But in the end Mayan something will be a success. As every Magnum. Personally I don’t even understand why they do TV. Most people (including me) only know they want to buy a Magnum when walking into a shop. The decision which one to choose is made in front of the big sign that tells you what kinds of Magnum they have. If there is a new one, you try it. Because it’s Magnum. Magnum always tastes good.

Comment by Seb April 10, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

All of this because of someone’s obsession with Eva’s rear actually.

Comment by John April 10, 2008 @ 5:36 pm

“Mr Lee” isnt allowed to fly business so theres no point creeping to him.

George is the key to comfort, so dont waste your time on some company employee 🙂

I am in a temporary position of power over our friend at Virgin and I fully intend to use it. I now know what George feels like and that feeling is good 🙂

Comment by Rob April 10, 2008 @ 5:51 pm

So, Will, you’ll be working on the premise of Indulgence and Irresistability then will you… Ha!

Comment by lauren April 10, 2008 @ 8:27 pm

finally some fucking justice in adland now if the sad twats behind the burbury bullshit could be publically killed i can be a bit fucking chirpier

enjoying your fucking dinner with lee again campbell? try not to call him a cock this time ok?

Comment by andy@cynic April 10, 2008 @ 11:06 pm

Maybe this is mean but this ad makes me think Magnum is for lonely women who want to feel they’re anyone other than Bridget Jones for a few minutes.
It feels more about escapism than indulgence which is why it put me off straight away.

Comment by Jemma King April 11, 2008 @ 6:38 am

I think Jemma may have hit the nail on the head. Excellent point.

Comment by Lee Hill April 11, 2008 @ 10:47 am

Jemma taught George all he knows 😉

Excellent point Jem, wonder if others feel the same way – I can definitely see how it has given you that impression and can also see how it could alienate women who are confident and happy with who they are rather than act as a ‘symbol’ of sensuality.

Jesus, I’m writing about an ice cream and talk about sensuality!!!

Comment by Rob April 11, 2008 @ 11:56 am

Lauren – I won’t tell you the line that won the pitch, but it’s very close to your last post.

Comment by Will April 11, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

here is a interesting idea on the advert, have a look! you deserve it!!

http://evidentlyeverywhere.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/freaky-eyebrows-and-chocolate/

Comment by JingYi Yuan February 20, 2009 @ 9:59 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI


Leave a Reply