Samsung b2100: Shakedown

Pretty cool.

Why is it though, that print or TV ads never have to qualify their reason for existing? "Results: Over 300,000 calls; sales increased 100% over two months." Who invented this rule? As with the Met Police campaign, these "non-traditional" efforts seem compelled to prove that they worked, as if effectiveness shows that the idea is not as dumb as it looks and that it is in fact, awesome. We get it – it's cool, it's real, and it works. But needing to show proof is lame. And besides, numbers can be fudged too. We like this work because it's good and not necessarily because it's effective, and because effectiveness doesn't necessarily mean that something is good. Creative people should stop feeling like they have to post statistics next to the work as validation – or else we should start doing the same for print and TV stuff as well.