Greenpeace: Storm
Advertising Agency: Scala JWT, Bucharest, Romania
Executive Creative Director: Mihai Cojocaru
Art Director: Virgiliu Andone
Photographer: Andrei Orcula
Creative Catalysts: Angela Teodorescu, Alexandra Cantor
Copywriter: Andreea Dragomir
Via: Bestadsontv
14 comments
poor lightning ;/
agree... could've been much better
complicated idea, horrible to read and very poor executed. and the message "save energy and maybe you or things that belong to you won't be hit by lightning" is lame. people don't care about 'maybe'-consequences. that's what started all this trouble
Completely agree. So many actual facts about climate change exist these days. People who resort to this kind of rubbish are just being lazy.
Jeez, that copy's really hard to read. Proper cross eyed here.
http://crabbitcopy.blogspot.com
poor
wow, that's some thick lightning! Amazing that such a rare display of physically impossible circumstances were captured for this ad. May Zeus spare us his crazy thick stuff if we don't ship up
Theres too much going on all over the place and in many directions. The copy is very hard to read.
And the lightning and explosions look very mediocre.
aaaand here we haveee!!!! the oneeee, the onlyyyyy, the INCOMPARABLE BAD PHOTOSHOPED LIGHTNING!
This kind of work is a great reason to ignore global warming and other nature-related issues. If you want people to listen you have to talk to them about something that will affect them directly. No one will care about a poor little tree in the middle of nowhere!
I WILL WRITE IN THEIR LANGUAGE: "TINETI NEAPARAT SA VA FACETI DE CACAT" ("GOOD INSIGHT THOUGH")
Most of all of the comments here suck. The point of putting something up here is to get insight and criticism from peers. "Poor Lighting, Bad, Poor"...? How is the artist supposed to grow and learn? Maybe we can offer some advice - like the lightning could be a bit thinner...
well, here we are telling him that THAT kind of work, the lightning one, is bad, very bad.
pixeldreams has the right idea. try to help people because what's the point otherwise?
to that point, the line "the more nature spares on you" isn't the right thought. the implication of that thought (at least to me) is that nature is going to do worse things to me if i do the right thing. it should be more like "if you don't save energy now, nature will make you pay later." or "if you're not saving energy, sooner or later nature will make you pay." you can write it ten million ways better than that but you get the idea. that said, the logic could be a little smarter and i don't know if fixing the line fixes the ad entirely but maybe it's a start.