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

I don’t know why – and I’m sure it’s actually illegal for a company to behave in such an anti-shareholder way – but they seem intent on bringing the company DOWN.

We’re not talking share price ‘dip’, we’re talking total bloody annihilation.

What am I talking about?

Well remember my post about this ad?

I think it’s fair to say we all agreed it was almost as shit as their ‘cino powdered coffee.

Anyway, whereas I hoped it was a momentary lapse of reason, it would appear it was part of a more dastardly plan … the slow and destructive death of a brand

You see, whilst I was skimming through one of the wife’s trash mags, I came across this …

Yes … more of the bloody thing.

And whilst they have had the decency to get rid of the stupid ‘serving suggestion’ copy – they have pretty much kept everything else, including the bloody woman whose having a fiddle in a bath of boiling hot brown liquid.

This is badvertising, sadvertising and madvertising all in one double page [it’s a fucking double page spread for christsakes!!!] ad!

So what am I to believe other than the CEO of Jarrah approved this shit campaign because he/she was offered a back hander from Nestle or someone to kill off the brand and take away some of the competition from the category.

But hang on, maybe it’s not corporate suicide, maybe it’s corporate murder.

Maybe the agency [does anyone know who it is?] were offered a shedload of cash from Nestle or someone to kill off the competition.

Jesus, I know adland is in a bad state but what’s it come to when an agency has to offer their services as corporate hitmen just to make a few bucks?

But in all seriousness this does lead to another question: should an agency get paid for doing an ad that is almost a mirror image of the one they did before?

Well the answer is obviously ‘yes’ – however should it be the same amount?

Of course the agency/client will say it’s all part of one integrated campaign and so they can’t be treated as separate pieces, however to me, this isn’t an integrated campaign, it’s an imitated one.

If I was a betting man, I’d say this originally was supposed to be a brand campaign and then the client got nervous so thought they would find it easier to justify if they linked each ad to a particular product.

The problem with this approach is that the ads are so similar that its all ended up blurring into one contrived, cliché-ridden bit of wallpaper, with nothing standing out, getting remembered or being differentiated from other sub-brands.

For me, integration isn’t about an overly standardised approach to sub-brands or executions … in fact one of my pet peeves is when someone calls a campaign ‘integrated’ just because they’ve taken a shot from a TVC/poster and then plastered it over every other media they could find.

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

For me, integration is when a brand expresses their underlying core idea – be it a thought, philosophy, attitude or tone – in continually new, fresh, relevant and exciting ways.

If you want me to express that as a total cliché, it’s where things are the same, yet different.

For me, this approach was one of the major contributing factors to Tango’s success – because every time someone encountered the brand, they experienced it in a fresh, energetic, exciting way, even though underpinning it all was a common belief/thought, relevant to the personality of the sub-brand in question.

Well I say all that, but in reality it was a bunch of guys having a lot of fun with a brand and client who believed advertising should be remembered for more than the 30 seconds it was forced upon your mind – but that’s a post for another day, something I am very passionate about and something – having discussed with Charles and Leon – I feel is quite relevant, which makes a change. Especially for me.

Anyway, getting back to the point …