Jump to navigation
What are you trying to say?
Ouch. Major rule being broken here. Never use political or religious figures, let alone both, to sell a trivial product.
Plus, picking up a picture off the web and putting a tag line and a logo is hardly creative. Basically, the art direction is done by the photographer.
Also, as Shanuea said, I don't really get what you're trying say exactly here.
No one cares about child labor, eye donation or saving the Earth: NO PSA!!! http://adsoftheworld.com/forum/135094
I agree this work isn't great, but please, stop this kind of bullshit comments!
First of all don't invent rules that aren't true. There are good, award winning campaigns using politicians and religious figures, even with both of them. Benetton is a good example of this, but there's also that famous Centraal Beheer commercial with Clinton ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwR9uPeVDOA ) and another campaign for butter showing opposite leaders eating a sandwich together, just to give you some examples. Off course it's edgy and has to fits a brand's strategy, but isn't that exactly what our job is about?
And why is it bad to use existing pictures? It's done a zillion times and often gives great advertising.
I know you can learn a lot from judging other people's work and it is a very interesting exercise, but please stop bullshitting like this. It won't help Caranata and it won't help you.
I think he's just giving people guidelines to work from. The part about using existing images is actually pretty true, because slapping a logo on something doesn't make it yours. And if your product strategy is such that you can take an image straight from the internet and make it work, then your strategy probably isn't very strong. At that point, you haven't invested any time or effort in either copywriting or art directing, so all you're really showing an agency is that you can find stock images. Even then, you have to give credit to the photographer or it's just copyright infringement.
The part about political and religious figures specifically isn't something I've read before, but I'd imagine Shawali is talking about borrowed interest. You don't imbue your product or brand with any emotion or insight, so essentially you're just using a celebrity as a crutch to convey certain characteristics of your brand. It's not really an effective long-term strategy because it's based in large part on the popularity of the individual you choose, which tends to wane over time. OP's work isn't quite that way because it's not really celebrity endorsement.
You mentioned Benetton, which I didn't know precisely what it was, but it's funny because this came to my mind as well:
If the comparison is that easy to make, it makes OP's work seem more like it's trying to be a copycat ad rather than having its own strategy. I actually don't like the original campaign, because I thought it was a stupid ploy for shock value. But they got media attention for it, so whatever.
If you want to offer up a critique for this campaign, go for it. Shawali probably doesn't have as much time as I do to write a book about each campaign or ad that pops up, but he does the best he can and gives pretty good insight in his short posts. It may seem like he's being curt or disdainful of others' work, but in reality he's just trying to filter through the clutter and try to help people who are serious about the work they're doing. And most of what he says is written in books that have been published by advertising professionals, or taught in classrooms. It's not like he's pulling things out of thin air or just stating his own opinion. Although that's probably part of it, because this is a subjective industry.
I should have mentioned that these tacit rules apply mainly to spec ads. My point was that it's too easy to just pick unrelated pictures and just put a logo on it. It's too much of a common thing in students portfolios and it's getting pretty old. I'm not saying that really cool ads cant' be done this way, every rules can be broken, but the chances are pretty slim. It's a bit like PSA campaigns. And I stand by my claim that using political figures to sell a trivial product IN SPEC ADS is way too naive. But again, yes, this "rule" too can be broken and it can totally work in certain instances. But definitely not here. And I always advise against using polarizing figures. It can really stir shits up and kill the point of the ad.
If the OP had taken the photos of Putin, Obama and the Pope - that might impress a potential employer. As it stands... not so much.
and I still don't get what these ads are trying to say.
There's an idea here, and it's good (if it is what I think it is). "Read my lips" refers to when you 're trying to "intimidate" or boss someone, thus the-bad-choice of photographs as the visuals (ex. Obama intimidating Putin). If instead of all these famous people, there was a little girl wearing Chapstick (the product is mainly for little girls, and some grown ups with dry lips, right?) and having an attitude/bossing someone around then this could work and be funny too. Imagine a little girl making a mean face wearing the product, and her little brother in the background cleaning her room, or her dad building her a playhouse etc.
"I don't live in Greece, Greece lives in me..."
i think this publicity will doesnt work with that people, first, because most of the guys in the photo even can see the lips , second, in this photos are potical and religious people, u cant post them, is polemic, and third, is a perfect product for explote the sensuality of the lips in..a first kiss, in the kiss for parents and family explain sensuality with love, a lot of couples about the target of the product using this for health and love.
Victor Rávago - Comunicador Social