The Economist: Striking writers

Ivan whats with you & typography?

Me no get.

Brilliant! Nice play on words as well as timeliness.

I like the "Trump Donald" one more but this is still great.

Me no get either.

A good line based on current events, but isn't this just copying someone else's campaign and throwing in a headline that works?

I'm a Writer and I wouldn't mind being described this way! :D

anybody explain pls, this one and the Trump one. thx

:::J:::

for me.. this is so-so . coz its not about the magazine at all...

nothing more than a clever pun : )

A pun that banks on current affair
Question the use of 'striking'
Not an oft-used description
for writers.

I can already smell people anonymously defending this ad. But I really don't like it.
PS: All serif fonts are not Times New Roman.

www.advertisingportfolio.blogspot.com

okay line. the campaign is so famous though that you cannot help yourself from comparing it to other ads from it. this execution will hurt your student book.

Hi everybody,

Thanks for all the comments, all criticisms good or bad are always helpful. Just to explain, for our class we looked at a wide selection of ads from The Economist, being great as they are. After that, our brief was to produce our own ad. This is obviously my result. I did explain this on submission but it has not been included. I respect your point Krautland and agree it's a famous campaign but a brief is a brief, I'm sure you can agree with that.

Jaggy, the font is Ecotype but was unfortunately not available to me.

Thanks again all!

if you're going to copy the style, at least do it as well or better - no easy thing, admittedly. but you'd be better creating a new economist feel. it's also quite forced. 2/10 though as there are no grammatical errors.

just read your explanation though after writing what's above - so, fair enough, you had an assignment. still, the main problem is that 'striking' is a forced description for a 'writer'. i understand that the idea is to play with what's in the news, but it fails because of the forcedness of the adjective. this is easily seen when we realise that 'striking descriptions' would be the kind of noun that more naturally fits that adjective.

my advice would therefore be to make sure your copy is devoid of such potential problems.