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

I’ve written about this before, however the reason it pisses me off so much is that quite often, they pay zero attention to the subtleties of the idea and just go in with both feet blazing.

One of campaigns that did my head in was LOWES work for LYNX/AXE.

Whilst it won a copious amount of awards, it was a very, very poor imitation of BBH’s work … turning the brand idea from ‘turns good girls, bad’ to something akin to ‘spray on shag’.

Of course they said it was to make it culturally relevant – and whilst I am a huge believer in localised relevance – too often this is an excuse agencies fall back on to basically justify whatever they want to produce because inherently, they hate the idea of having to follow someone else’s guidelines.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that feeling … especially when some 2-bit agency mandates a template that gives you all the creative freedom of a boil-in-the-bag dinner … but I have found that if you are willing to truly understand the subtleties of the brand idea, then you have a damn sight more opportunity than you might otherwise think, especially if the agency who developed the original concept is one of the good guys.

Of course it’s not just the agencies fault.

Let’s face it, work always has to be approved so I always find it amusing when a client slags off an agency for some work they produced when often, they had a disproportionate amount of influence in its overall creation …

The reason I write this is because recently Burger King have copped huge amounts of flack for some ads they’ve run.

The pic at the top of this post is a perfect example.

Created in Singapore, this lowest-common-denominator, juvenile, sexist shit bears no resemblance to the beautifully crafted and executed Crispin brand idea of ‘It’s Good To Be King’ …

“Ahhhhh, but it generated loads of publicity” I hear you cry.

Yeah it did … apart from the fact it’s a rip-off another crap ad … anyone can get PR with this approach and even then it doesn’t mean people will actually buy the bloody thing.

This sort of bollocks does adland a huge disservice because we get known as specialists in shock rather than in persuasion – which is probably one of the reasons why clients don’t value what we do with the level of remuneration many of us deserve and who can blame them.

Does sex sell?

Sure it does, but this isn’t sex, this is pre-pubescent bullshit and say’s more about the guys at the agency/client than it does of the society they are supposedly meant to impact.

[Though given Singapore’s myopic and patriarchal society, maybe it was very appropriate]

Anyway, to further highlight that there are a lot of people in adland/marketing that don’t deserve to have the word ‘creative’ anywhere in their job description – news has just come in of one of the most culturally insensitive pieces of work I’ve heard of in a long time.

Yes I know the ad was developed/run in Spain – not known as the most open country for accepting other cultures/nationalities [let alone other religions] – but even then, it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to know this was a crass move and I hope the agency and the client behind this cop all the shit they deserve.

What I find funny is that Crispin’s often cop flack for creating jockvertising … and whilst some of their work has ‘room for improvement’ … they are still one of the most creative, inventive and intelligent agencies in the World and when you compare what they do for BK to what other agencies produce, I think it is only fair to call them advertising Einstein’s.

For a brand that once celebrated the ‘crazy ones’ … the people with unwavering visions, values and beliefs … you’re doing a pretty good impression of being like the rest of the spineless multinationals who whore themselves in a desperate bid for a piece of the Chinese market.

You can’t talk about creativity and individualism when you’ve ultimately let the Chinese Government dictate what people can be creative and individual about – or worse – help them identify people who are expressing alternative opinion or viewpoints. You’ll probably be the first to include their ‘citizen spy’ … I mean, citizen safety’ software next!

You used to make people believe you stood for something more than just clever technology … now you’re just like the rest of them, just with nicer kit.

But Apple’s principals seem dead and buried!

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 …

Still, it shows [1] the power of a good story and [2] how brands can engage people on their devilish aspirations, not just their status ones.
___________________________________________________________________

This letter was sent to the Lions Bay School principal’s office after the school had sponsored a luncheon for seniors. An elderly lady received a new radio at the lunch as a door prize and was writing to say thank you.