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

The pie chart indicates the division of communal assets after the wedding fails due to the childish antics of one or other party (as illustrated by the teddy bear). Obvious really.

As to your point, I agree entirely as evidenced by my blogging about it yesterday.

Isn’t that a bit like what Levi’s did years ago with the 501 antifit-campaign. It was the same jeans as for years but Levi’s told people: hey, you can wear them slim or loose, it depends on which size you buy.

And I have bad news for you, Rob. Fucking bullshit like this works. I don’t know how retarded people have to be believing crap like that. But I remember being asked by a mother (she had her 13 year old son with her) where they could find the “antifit jeans”. We were standing in front of a HUGE shelf filled with 501 and signs saying so. I reckon I don’t have to mention that she did not really believe me when I told her that “antifit” is an ordinary 501 worn one size bigger.

look at fucking dr dodds telling it like it isnt. i think i am the best fucking placed to comment on dividing assets because of twatish behaviour and theres never a pie chart involved. never.

does anyone actually give a fuck about coming up with a theory that connects those 3 photos? we all know dodds did but hes someone who visits this fucking blog on a sunday so he doesnt count as a human fucking being.

something is wrong with this post. its the second in a row that got me laughing ‘with’ rather than ‘at’ and thats fucking concerning. have you employed the services of a ghost writer campbell because this is so unlike you. i dont even mind the overall post because your anger shines through rather than the google kool aid happiness ive had to endure for the past few months. maybe im ill maybe i need a break maybe i just need to stay the fuck away from you.

ps weddings, pie charts and fluffy bears, the 3 advertising themes of asian advertising. its your fucking laptop isnt it campbell 🙂

I was only keeping you company Andy.

Alt+Tab… hahaha!!

i think this is a symptom of urban/technological alienation, forcing humans to compartmentalise themselves into various ‘modes of existence’.

I’ve just got in after the flight from hell and what do I see?

Lauren talking like the scariest planner on earth [but with her usual top view/insight] … Andy going on a rant but about the topic rather then me … Pete worrying about my health … John being errrrrm, John … Charles seemingly making a comment but holding back from what I know is bursting to come out and Seb challenging Andy to justify his comment.

Bloody hell, it’s almost like a real blog. It’s almost worth going on more horror flights but I just don’t think I could handle it – mainly because it included one of the most embarassing moments of my life, and that’s saying something for me, ha!

Finally Seb, I’ve read Andy’s comments and knowing how the bugger thinks [it’s not hard, ha] I think what he is saying is that Levi’s and Polo’s used adland to create an idea that could make an otherwise useless byproduct of the manufacturing process, desirable [though I’m not sure how that works with Levis but it could be linked to excess stock because I know the brand was having major sales problems prior to Anti-Fit] whereas in SONY’s case [yes Pete, this is a SONY idea – but at least it’s not colour] the origination of the idea [hahaha] came from the client which means they would have invested time & money into making it happen.

That’s about as clear as mud isn’t it?

OK, LEVI’S and Polo maximised sales by finding a way to make things that were already there, attractive – whereas SONY have actually invested new money in both developing the shit concept and trying to sell it.

Still not doing this justice.

ANNNDDDDDYYYYY – come and explain your shit to Seb will you 🙂

Much as it pains me to say this, Seb has a point. The later waves of tech marketing are increasingly about “demystifying” for the consumer market, products and services that were originally geeked out and mystified to appeal to the IT buyers of the world. This feature probably was there already and this is a bolt-on marketing effort (calling it switch rather than alt-tab). It should have been called switch in the first place but user experience is not high on the tech R&D’s department’s to do list as it should be.

Once the product’s made, it’s difficult to change the interior and that’s why you get ridiculous attempts at selling user experience that include reframing existing features and changing the exterior. Marketing is not hard-wired into their design and that’s the problem.

That and the fact that this approach patronises the masses by assuming that they’re all technophobic – may have been true before but not if you look around any workplace these days. The culture already changed Rob, but the ad people chose an easy LCD assessment that ignored or overlooked that fact.

My head was hurting before I read your response John but now it’s positively pounding.

Of course you’re probably right [and Seb] but I think Andy’s point is more about the power of adland developing an idea that made an exisiting element desirable to the masses and helped increase incremental revenues rather than this product-poo, which smacks of a client evolving an exisiting element in a desperate bid to have ‘new news’ even though people don’t want it or need it and certainly won’t be willing to pay a premium for it … especially as it is being sold rationally rather than creating an idea that may – just may – help help change mindset or attitude.

Is that what I have been trying to say? Yeah sort-of but I’m too tired to get it right. Or should I say too tired to care. Yes, that’s a much better explanation.

And just for the record, I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT so please don’t lump me in with the adpeople who didn’t go back to the client and say “the only way we stand a modicum of chance of selling this is if you let us develop an attitudinal change idea rather than just sell it as a rational attribute on your already overpriced computers”

Thank you and goodnight. And I mean that very literally, ha

I’m not sure if you are right with saying the good ideas (like antifit) are created by an ad agency and the bad stuff (like sony) was thought up by the clients. I guess only BBH people can tell. Who knows if the antifit was already a marketing idea and then BBH just advertised it? And maybe on the other side the agency came up with that “switch mode” shit and the client just bought it because they didn’t know better. You’ll probably never know the truth.

But I guess we can all agree on that you need good minds on both sides. Because one shit side rules out the good on the other side.

What relationship?

He does have the cleavage for it.

you can tell rob is an iti cant you. first bit of trouble and he calls in for help. then northern was a big girls blouse recently wasnt he? well fuck em, they get themselves into this shit, they need to get out of it, might help toughen up the jelly backboned little twats 🙂