This year I watched the Super Bowl with a small, but disparate group of friends out in Fort Mason.
Unfortunately, I missed the first quarter because we were foolishly trying to buy all of the ingredients for 7-layer dip 30 min before the game. It was a great game, with the Saints really pulling ahead in the end. I think everyone was pretty much rooting for the Saints.
On to what really matters: the commercials.
THE BEST
#1
None of my Super Bowl buddies works in marketing or advertising, and yet everyone in the room stopped what they were doing and shut up to see how this commercial would end. Isn't that the hallmark of a great ad?
Okay the end was over-the-top cheese. Still. I rank it as the best ad of the Super Bowl. After awhile, everything just seemed annoyingly loud.
#2
With an overload of ridiculously testoroned/predictable car ads, this ad was a pleasant surprise, that had us all smiling, reminiscing over our own Vegas trip, and debating over who would get to be which toy in the ad.
#3
Maybe not the most innovative idea, but this car ad also made us all smile.
Speaking of car ads, Toyota's absence in the line-up was very noticeable. Wish they had taken the opportunity rather than shied away. When will they devise a PR strategy?
THE WORST
Golly. Where to begin? It seems like this year was SO many bad, annoying, typical ads.
#1
This one gets a shout out as the biggest disappointment. Intel's Rockstar ads were so brilliant! This one is just sadly predictable and uninsightful.
#2
This ad took wacky, off-the-wall humor to a level of...stupidity.
#3
Another disappointment. The beginning looked so promising. We were all sure it was going to go somewhere hilarious and unexpected. Instead we got this:
DIS-Honorable Mentions:
Dove
Manthem? Feel Comfortable in Your Own Skin? Who are they trying to kid? It's Dove. Give guys some credit for intelligence and recognize who you really are when talking to men.
Doritos
They just seemed overexposed and had off-the-wall commercials/tie-ins that didn't make sense to us.
E-Trade
Also overexposed. And the baby gimmick is tired. Give it a rest already. Not funny anymore. It's like hearing someone tell another God-awful "That's what she said" joke.
Overall, it was refreshing to watch real TV with real commercial breaks. It is so easy to think that ads are genius when you watch them in the bubble of isolated clips. When you see them in context, they tell a very different story.
Sigh. Almost makes me regret my cable-free life. Almost.
Showing posts with label Advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advertising. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
French Safe Sex Commercial
This is perhaps the weirdest ad I have ever seen. But I love it. In all of its weirdness, it is brill. Thank you, Loganatron!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Art & Copy
I have been looking forward to it for weeks. Months, perhaps. The premiere of Art & Copy, a little indie documentary commissioned by The One Club about the creative field of advertising.
Truth be told, out here in L.A., I have found myself chomping at the bit to be reconnected in any way with the world of creatives I found in San Francisco. Ah, that little conclave of bombastic creative opinions and cursing.
So I followed Art & Copy on Twitter, and put the premiere date in my I-Cal, with a two-week advance reminder to get tickets. I imagined that every ad person in Southern California would be flocking to the West Hollywood premiere and I wanted to make sure I would not be left without a ticket. After all, at best, this film promised access to the thoughts and stories of some of the greatest minds in advertising, and at the very least, we advertising folk thoroughly enjoy being reminded of the cultural significance and visionary genius of our industry.
I dragged along my boyfriend, who works in political digital campaigns, and my friend, Jay, who used to be a planner and now works as a qualitative research.
The courtyard outside the Laemmle 5 Theater was swarming with eager attendees...for another film. Our own little screening room was graced by the producers of the film and an almost half-full theater. My hopes to surrounded by anticipatory, creative electricity were immediately dashed.
Still, the opening scene seemed promising. Cave drawings and layered ad jingles started to draw a correlation between prehistoric cave drawings and the creative expressions of advertisers...but the full metaphor was never drawn. And, in fact, that is my major criticism of the film. Potential ideas were intimated, but never fully explored, leaving me to question the actual thesis of the film. Ironically, the film spent considerable time describing how advertising brought humanity and story elements to business sales, and yet the film itself lacked any sort of narrative arch. Instead, it seemed to relay a series of anecdotes and Power-Point-worthy factoids in a loosely chronological order.
It seems to me a film suitable for first semester advertising students, to indoctrinate them into the religion and lore of advertising, but as someone pretty familiar with both, I found myself growing a little bored with the film. As an insider, it seemed to me that likely only someone in the industry would actually be interested in the film, but my boyfriend, Shane, thinks anyone in a creative field or marketing would find the movie interesting, and his own mind was buzzing with how to bring greater creativity and relevancy to his client work (mind you, Shane already does a pretty good job of this).
True to industry form, the movie was peppered with profanity and hubris, most notably from famed art director, George Lois. His presence in the film actually made me squirm a bit, in part because some of his claims seemed so hubristic as to make all us advertisers seem kind of like asses, but also because I had just heard a podcast of This American Life, in which his former ad partner, Julian Koenig, and some of his other colleagues openly accuse George of frequently taking credit for the work and ideas of others. It made me want to question the credibility of the film.
Perhaps the most haunting line of the film was when Mary Well boldly claimed,"You can manufacture any feeling you want to manufacture." That definitely made me sit up in my seat (and perhaps cringe a little). But while Art & Copy had the potential to make this an indictment of the industry, it never carried through. Likely because of The One Club. As I remember one Rotten Tomatoes critic saying--it's an ad for advertising.
The greatest treat for me was seeing some of the great minds of advertising that shaped the industry in the 20th century, speaking, revealing their personality quirks, and sharing their values. In particular, I found myself inspired by Lee Clow (TBWA Chiat Day) who reminded me of a sage surfer uncle. I was wowed by the drive and energy of Mary Wells (Wells Rich Greene. I was charmed by the evocative campaigns of Hal Riney (Publicis Hal Riney). I was amused by the working relationship of Dan Wieden and David Kennedy (W+K) (and enamored with their Northwest offices). I was a little miffed Goodby & Silverstein didn't talk at least a little bit about the account planning that went into Got Milk? (of course). And I was surprised and disappointed not to see anything from advertising celebrity du jour, Alex Bogusky.
I might choose to buy a film like this, if I intended to teach. Otherwise, for inspiration and enrichment, I would be more likely to thumb through an issue of Ad Age or CMYK. Or re-watch Frida.
My next cinematic craving, which may also leave me a bit disappointed, but still happy:
The September Issue!
Truth be told, out here in L.A., I have found myself chomping at the bit to be reconnected in any way with the world of creatives I found in San Francisco. Ah, that little conclave of bombastic creative opinions and cursing.
So I followed Art & Copy on Twitter, and put the premiere date in my I-Cal, with a two-week advance reminder to get tickets. I imagined that every ad person in Southern California would be flocking to the West Hollywood premiere and I wanted to make sure I would not be left without a ticket. After all, at best, this film promised access to the thoughts and stories of some of the greatest minds in advertising, and at the very least, we advertising folk thoroughly enjoy being reminded of the cultural significance and visionary genius of our industry.
I dragged along my boyfriend, who works in political digital campaigns, and my friend, Jay, who used to be a planner and now works as a qualitative research.
The courtyard outside the Laemmle 5 Theater was swarming with eager attendees...for another film. Our own little screening room was graced by the producers of the film and an almost half-full theater. My hopes to surrounded by anticipatory, creative electricity were immediately dashed.
Still, the opening scene seemed promising. Cave drawings and layered ad jingles started to draw a correlation between prehistoric cave drawings and the creative expressions of advertisers...but the full metaphor was never drawn. And, in fact, that is my major criticism of the film. Potential ideas were intimated, but never fully explored, leaving me to question the actual thesis of the film. Ironically, the film spent considerable time describing how advertising brought humanity and story elements to business sales, and yet the film itself lacked any sort of narrative arch. Instead, it seemed to relay a series of anecdotes and Power-Point-worthy factoids in a loosely chronological order.
It seems to me a film suitable for first semester advertising students, to indoctrinate them into the religion and lore of advertising, but as someone pretty familiar with both, I found myself growing a little bored with the film. As an insider, it seemed to me that likely only someone in the industry would actually be interested in the film, but my boyfriend, Shane, thinks anyone in a creative field or marketing would find the movie interesting, and his own mind was buzzing with how to bring greater creativity and relevancy to his client work (mind you, Shane already does a pretty good job of this).
True to industry form, the movie was peppered with profanity and hubris, most notably from famed art director, George Lois. His presence in the film actually made me squirm a bit, in part because some of his claims seemed so hubristic as to make all us advertisers seem kind of like asses, but also because I had just heard a podcast of This American Life, in which his former ad partner, Julian Koenig, and some of his other colleagues openly accuse George of frequently taking credit for the work and ideas of others. It made me want to question the credibility of the film.
Perhaps the most haunting line of the film was when Mary Well boldly claimed,"You can manufacture any feeling you want to manufacture." That definitely made me sit up in my seat (and perhaps cringe a little). But while Art & Copy had the potential to make this an indictment of the industry, it never carried through. Likely because of The One Club. As I remember one Rotten Tomatoes critic saying--it's an ad for advertising.
The greatest treat for me was seeing some of the great minds of advertising that shaped the industry in the 20th century, speaking, revealing their personality quirks, and sharing their values. In particular, I found myself inspired by Lee Clow (TBWA Chiat Day) who reminded me of a sage surfer uncle. I was wowed by the drive and energy of Mary Wells (Wells Rich Greene. I was charmed by the evocative campaigns of Hal Riney (Publicis Hal Riney). I was amused by the working relationship of Dan Wieden and David Kennedy (W+K) (and enamored with their Northwest offices). I was a little miffed Goodby & Silverstein didn't talk at least a little bit about the account planning that went into Got Milk? (of course). And I was surprised and disappointed not to see anything from advertising celebrity du jour, Alex Bogusky.
I might choose to buy a film like this, if I intended to teach. Otherwise, for inspiration and enrichment, I would be more likely to thumb through an issue of Ad Age or CMYK. Or re-watch Frida.
My next cinematic craving, which may also leave me a bit disappointed, but still happy:
The September Issue!
Friday, August 28, 2009
R-E-S- . . . P-S-S?**
Research. Who does it? Who cares?
Lately that topic has come up quite a bit in conversation as I have talked to various people in the industry (of advertising).
Sometimes it seems that clients want to use research as a crutch, to validate the proposed campaign, to make decisions for them on what path to take, to help them sleep at night resting comfortably that they will get great ROI (Return-On-Investment. Perhaps one of the most hateful terms to have gotten stuck in my head since entering this dizzy little industry).
I think, for this reason, many creatives and planners have developed something of a resentful relationship towards research. It becomes hampering towards great ideas, diluting creativity, and stymie-ing potential growth. Some planners and creatives I have talked to value infinitely more the power of brilliant intuition.
This intuition comes in particularly valuable when you are called upon to offer keen insights on the spot, without the chance to research a question and assess trends and history. I would, however, counter that great intuition is built upon good research.
Once, long ago, I was fervently dedicated to the idea of becoming a clinical psychologist. People already came to me for advice, and I thought I was pretty darned good at it. I shudder now to think at some of the bad advice I gave. But at the time I thought my intuition was so damned good. It took years of listening to people's problems, studying human behavior in an academic way, going through some of my own life experiences, and taking a step back, pondering, and looking for larger patterns.
Now, when people come to me for advice on relationships, I think I can reliably say my intuition is pretty good. I can quickly look at a situation/dynamic and assess the key issues. Often, I can even offer a really good solution. But this quick intuition has been fed by years of research and analysis.
Ultimately what is intuition, but what is latently within us. And you can only get out of something what you put into it.
Some planners reading this will be quick to observe this is why we often want planners with a wide breadth of experiences, because they can draw upon those experiences to feed their intuitive problem-solving. Life experiences, reading, and deep pondering are definitely forms of research.
But I think we should not be quick to negate other structured forms of qualitative and quantitative research as incredibly valuable to the creative process. Research results from these endeavors can significantly expand our thinking beyond our limited experiences. Sometimes it is just about the right question. We see surprising data that maybe did not fit with our preconceived thinking, but suddenly that puzzle piece makes sense in the whole scheme.
I think therein lies the key to good empirical research feeding the creative process of advertising: asking the right question. Asking the question that probably no one else has thought to ask. It is asking these kinds of questions that has led to some of our great breakthroughs in thinking: air-borne germ theory, a helio-centric planetary system, pizza-on-a-bagel means you can have pizza anytime!
In all seriousness, as a former academic, I value good research and the insights it can bring, but, as a creative person, I know that the best solutions often involve an element of risk, of trying out something that cannot be proven to be fail-safe. And that is bad news to the business suits who want security blanket solutions.
**SPSS . . . the statistics analytics tool. R-E-S-P-E-C-T . . . the Aretha Franklin song . . . never mind.
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Future of Advertising
(above is the vomit of this digital marketing behemoth)
Perhaps it is because creatives AND business people are the biggest bunch of navel-gazers on the planet, but I am SO sick of hearing about "the future of advertising". "The future of advertising is . . . !" or "John, what would YOU say is the future of advertising?" or "Is advertising dead?"
It's like the frivolity of fashion forecasting. In fact the parallels between our industry and the fashion industry are staggering (for all that industry types loathe fashion ads). The point being, you can sit on the red carpet and postulate that patent leather will be the must-have for fall, but people with real style aren't very affected by these trends. They disdain the trendy and go for a unique style that conveys their values and outlook on the world and that works with their body types. They understand that jumping on fall's fad will leave them looking like an idiot in spring.
Not that I am the most stylish person in the world, but I do enjoy the impact of smart aesthetic choices in clothes, and I know that there are items in my closet that I wore in high school that still garner praise and still look very fresh and relevant and can be found echoed in the "latest trends".
It's like vintage Chanel or the brand identity designs of Paul Rand. They still look great, they are still appealing, and they are still very effective.
Rather than trying to figure out the next gimmick, I think it is the role of good advertising/marketing/pr/creative agencies to help individual companies find their own "sense of style", then as gimmicks and trends come along, like the latest social media app (it's scary how easily that word comes now) or a new media outlet, you can work with the brand to decide, "Does this fit? Hm. Maybe it kind of makes my ass look fat, let's go with the distressed oxford shirt. If we we change out the buttons and pull it with a cool blazer, we can really make it work." Ultimately, I guess I am saying its about the identity/message, not the medium and not the funky tools (*cough* drop shadow!).
PS-I will confess I am still irked that everyone started wearing blazers with jeans a few years ago because I enjoyed being the only person wearing that in high school.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies
Did I get that 80's song stuck in your head? Great because that was the first thing that came to mind when I saw this:
It's part of an inventive new campaign from Tappening, an organization aimed at reducing bottled water consumption. It's a popular trend that has inspired the proliferation of the annoyingly over-priced Sigg water bottles and banning of bottled water use by some government offices.
In a very aggressive move, Tappening is launching a campaign of self-admitted "lies" about bottled water. Their rationale being that the bottled water industry touts many lies about the health and purity of its products, and so it is only fair to fight fire with fire.
They are even encouraging people to start their own lies about bottled water across various social media channels on their site, startalie.com.
I do have to give them props for this inventive strategy. It shows a keen understanding of human nature. This hearkens back to what I kept saying about the whole Prop 8 strategy: it is easier to push human behavior with the very base human emotion of fear rather than convincing and compelling with love. Pro-Prop 8: fear mongering of societal demise. Anti-Prop 8: love is for everyone. Any time you can inspire fear in groups of people you can get them to go along with what you say. Witness American military engagement in Iraq, post-911 which enjoyed wide public support because of fear.
Tappening has "tapped" into this by recognizing that you are going to receive limited support by getting all squishy and emotional about reducing plastic waste and saving the environment, but if you can get people to see the bottled water industry as nefarious, deceitful, and harmful . . . well, then now you are going to get people moving.
While I support the cause, I am still morally unsettled on the tactic.
Interestingly, this issue has recently come to the fore in my personal life. As a new denizen of Los Angeles, I am the beneficiary of the City of Los Angeles' wonderful water treatment facilities! . . . which makes water taste like swill. This was particularly noted when we were out at dinner with our good friend Adam who described the water here as "slimy". I just think it tastes like pool water (read: HEAVY chlorine). Shane also does not like the water in LA and suggested we get water delivered to our home. Our PUR water filter only reduces the funky taste, but does not eliminate it. I was immediately concerned about the carbon footprint of water delivery, but Tappening's own link to an LA water analysis did nothing to make me feel better about drinking local tap, highlighting 46 pollutants in my tap water!
Tappening has even taken aim at my beloved San Pellegrino! I enjoy Pellegrino as an alternative to soft drinks and beer, not as a regular form of hydration. You can take my Evian, but you can never take . . . my Pellegrino!
Seriously, though, I support carrying your own reusable water bottle (I carry one myself) and getting people to think more about where the waste from their casual consumption goes, so I wish Tappening luck in their campaign to slash bottled water at the knees and if you want to help--start getting creative with your fibbing: www.startalie.com.
It's part of an inventive new campaign from Tappening, an organization aimed at reducing bottled water consumption. It's a popular trend that has inspired the proliferation of the annoyingly over-priced Sigg water bottles and banning of bottled water use by some government offices.
In a very aggressive move, Tappening is launching a campaign of self-admitted "lies" about bottled water. Their rationale being that the bottled water industry touts many lies about the health and purity of its products, and so it is only fair to fight fire with fire.
They are even encouraging people to start their own lies about bottled water across various social media channels on their site, startalie.com.
I do have to give them props for this inventive strategy. It shows a keen understanding of human nature. This hearkens back to what I kept saying about the whole Prop 8 strategy: it is easier to push human behavior with the very base human emotion of fear rather than convincing and compelling with love. Pro-Prop 8: fear mongering of societal demise. Anti-Prop 8: love is for everyone. Any time you can inspire fear in groups of people you can get them to go along with what you say. Witness American military engagement in Iraq, post-911 which enjoyed wide public support because of fear.
Tappening has "tapped" into this by recognizing that you are going to receive limited support by getting all squishy and emotional about reducing plastic waste and saving the environment, but if you can get people to see the bottled water industry as nefarious, deceitful, and harmful . . . well, then now you are going to get people moving.
While I support the cause, I am still morally unsettled on the tactic.
Interestingly, this issue has recently come to the fore in my personal life. As a new denizen of Los Angeles, I am the beneficiary of the City of Los Angeles' wonderful water treatment facilities! . . . which makes water taste like swill. This was particularly noted when we were out at dinner with our good friend Adam who described the water here as "slimy". I just think it tastes like pool water (read: HEAVY chlorine). Shane also does not like the water in LA and suggested we get water delivered to our home. Our PUR water filter only reduces the funky taste, but does not eliminate it. I was immediately concerned about the carbon footprint of water delivery, but Tappening's own link to an LA water analysis did nothing to make me feel better about drinking local tap, highlighting 46 pollutants in my tap water!
Tappening has even taken aim at my beloved San Pellegrino! I enjoy Pellegrino as an alternative to soft drinks and beer, not as a regular form of hydration. You can take my Evian, but you can never take . . . my Pellegrino!
Seriously, though, I support carrying your own reusable water bottle (I carry one myself) and getting people to think more about where the waste from their casual consumption goes, so I wish Tappening luck in their campaign to slash bottled water at the knees and if you want to help--start getting creative with your fibbing: www.startalie.com.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
. . . but Women Find New Ways To Rock It
I wanted to share this video, the AdAge site makes it a bitch to embed, much less link videos. So you can click here to link to the story that links you to the video (lame, I know!).
The first half is a little yawn-tastic, but the second half Carrie really talks about how we can dimensionalize Twitter in a great way to really create a conversation and community.
Basically what she did was assume the identity of Peggy (from the hit TV show MadMen) on Twitter and started tweeting about "her life" as Peggy. It was great! People with interest in the show started following her and she started to pick up the identities of other characters and micro blog about their lives, creating heightened drama and interactivity with the show.
The idea is not exactly crazy new. It's basically fan fiction, and it takes that kind of fan fervor to invest in it to make an interesting feed.
What Carrie is trying to do is capitalize on this by starting up an agency and offering similar services for other shows and entertainment clients. She started out as an enthusiastic fan and is looking at making this into a sellable product.
Women. Always so brill and creative. Always coming up with such great new ideas to bring human dimension to really dry stuff.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
WTF LDS Media Planning?
Perhaps I am a little biased as a former rank-and-file member, but, in general, I would say the Mormons have done a pretty good job with their marketing and pr since, oh, . . . the 1980's.
In fact, to this day, I think the whole "Family, isn't it about . . . time?" campaign is pretty freakin' genius.
(Although the version aired in the U.S. did not have British accents; I think this is dubbed.)
But I seriously have to question this most recent move towards "interactive" media:
My friends and I were settling in to watch some hilarious SNL parody courtesy of the delightful Amy Poehler, when, ACK! It's Jesus! Offering me a Book of Mormon!
What is this trying to say? The Good Lord likes to get his chuckles, too? By watching SNL? Ironic, since the Church-owned NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City refused to carry SNL.
Maybe the Church is trying to save me from SNL? "Stop! Before you think of pushing play, remember Jesus and return to Jesus!"??
Bemused and befuddled, I watched the rest of The Dakota Fanning Show skit (hilarious, if you haven't seen it.) and learned a valuable lesson: blindly-placed banner ads (or any kinds of ads) are bad. Very bad.
*Please let it be noted that the PC display you see represented in the photo in no way reflects my own computer usage proclivities. The session of SNL viewing was done on a friend's PC and not on my own very lovely MacBook.
In fact, to this day, I think the whole "Family, isn't it about . . . time?" campaign is pretty freakin' genius.
(Although the version aired in the U.S. did not have British accents; I think this is dubbed.)
But I seriously have to question this most recent move towards "interactive" media:
My friends and I were settling in to watch some hilarious SNL parody courtesy of the delightful Amy Poehler, when, ACK! It's Jesus! Offering me a Book of Mormon!
What is this trying to say? The Good Lord likes to get his chuckles, too? By watching SNL? Ironic, since the Church-owned NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City refused to carry SNL.
Maybe the Church is trying to save me from SNL? "Stop! Before you think of pushing play, remember Jesus and return to Jesus!"??
Bemused and befuddled, I watched the rest of The Dakota Fanning Show skit (hilarious, if you haven't seen it.) and learned a valuable lesson: blindly-placed banner ads (or any kinds of ads) are bad. Very bad.
*Please let it be noted that the PC display you see represented in the photo in no way reflects my own computer usage proclivities. The session of SNL viewing was done on a friend's PC and not on my own very lovely MacBook.
Friday, May 8, 2009
All the Laaadies!
This goes out to all of my lady friends out there, in particular my dear friend, Noemie, who showed me that awful Quattro ad weeks ago:
Ultimately, what irks me about this is holding on to cultural traditions that don't serve us. Tip-toeing around anatomy for the sake of Puritanical comfort breeds attitudes that make women ashamed of their own bodies and lead some people to think that when not being used for sex, vaginas are icky.
This reminds of (of course!) that wonderful female driven show, Sex and the City. In one episode Charlotte is so uptight she has never actually looked at her own vag. Its not until her mid- 30's that she finally grabs a hand-held mirror and takes a peek. What does she learn? It actually looks really nice! Also reminds of an episode where Samantha gets scrutinized by a guy for being "between waxes". She grabs a pair of clippers and turns the tables on him. He learns: Hey! It looks bigger!
While I am not suggesting we put overtly sexual material out in the general public sphere. I am saying calling a penis a "wee-wee" or a vagina a "who-ha" creates internal conflict about body image and negatively affects sexual interactions in the future, which then negatively impacts families. Whether you're a conservative Mormon or gay marriage activist, don't we all want stronger families?
So let's be honest with ourselves and each other and maybe we can help erode inferiority complexes and unrealistic expectations. And maybe advertisers won't sell products like nervous middle-schoolers.
(Current TV's Target Women is one my favorite things out there.)
Ultimately, what irks me about this is holding on to cultural traditions that don't serve us. Tip-toeing around anatomy for the sake of Puritanical comfort breeds attitudes that make women ashamed of their own bodies and lead some people to think that when not being used for sex, vaginas are icky.
This reminds of (of course!) that wonderful female driven show, Sex and the City. In one episode Charlotte is so uptight she has never actually looked at her own vag. Its not until her mid- 30's that she finally grabs a hand-held mirror and takes a peek. What does she learn? It actually looks really nice! Also reminds of an episode where Samantha gets scrutinized by a guy for being "between waxes". She grabs a pair of clippers and turns the tables on him. He learns: Hey! It looks bigger!
While I am not suggesting we put overtly sexual material out in the general public sphere. I am saying calling a penis a "wee-wee" or a vagina a "who-ha" creates internal conflict about body image and negatively affects sexual interactions in the future, which then negatively impacts families. Whether you're a conservative Mormon or gay marriage activist, don't we all want stronger families?
So let's be honest with ourselves and each other and maybe we can help erode inferiority complexes and unrealistic expectations. And maybe advertisers won't sell products like nervous middle-schoolers.
(Current TV's Target Women is one my favorite things out there.)
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Redemption of Quizno's?
Many years ago, Quizno's lost my potential patronage by running this ad campaign:
Anytime it would pop up in my pre-TiVO TV-viewing, I would scramble for the remote. The rat things looked disgusting and their singing was so grating, I had to plug up my ears. This truly awful campaign combined with their exorbitant prices for a freakin' sandwich guaranteed I would never set foot in their stores (it was mostly the bad ads. I also became a Target devotee, merely because their ads were so pretty).
But, now Quizno's is offering better prices and a couple of really funny ads:
The first one is better, IMHO. Toaster sex+phallic sandwiches=fun for all!
Anytime it would pop up in my pre-TiVO TV-viewing, I would scramble for the remote. The rat things looked disgusting and their singing was so grating, I had to plug up my ears. This truly awful campaign combined with their exorbitant prices for a freakin' sandwich guaranteed I would never set foot in their stores (it was mostly the bad ads. I also became a Target devotee, merely because their ads were so pretty).
But, now Quizno's is offering better prices and a couple of really funny ads:
The first one is better, IMHO. Toaster sex+phallic sandwiches=fun for all!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Trader Joe's Commercial
If Trader Joe's ever did decide to do television advertising, I think this would be perfect in tenor and tone. Truly brilliant post by Carl on YouTube.
Not that Trader Joe's needs advertising. It's like when I was given the assignment to work on In-N-Out. I went to one of their stores and had to wrestle an old Asian lady to the ground for a dirty, ketchup-smeared table. Some businesses are just that great. They don't need someone telling them to buy, people just want to go there.
On a side note, that Trader Joe's parking lot is in San Francisco! We go there all the time!
Not that Trader Joe's needs advertising. It's like when I was given the assignment to work on In-N-Out. I went to one of their stores and had to wrestle an old Asian lady to the ground for a dirty, ketchup-smeared table. Some businesses are just that great. They don't need someone telling them to buy, people just want to go there.
On a side note, that Trader Joe's parking lot is in San Francisco! We go there all the time!
Mad Libs!
Don't get me wrong. I think Mad Men is beautifully cinematic, very well-written and acted, and just a great show I would love to follow, but I am kind of sick of hearing about it, and I think I will have to endure people assuming that is what my job is really like for . . . at least the next five or six years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
