The Pulled Flake Ad
Posted in Uncategorized
(Thanks, Damo.)
I have to say this is a really interesting story.
An agency wanted to make an amazing ad, so they got Walter Campbell and Jonathan Glazer to come up with this giant, balls-out grenade of a spot – for a chocolate bar – and it lost them the account.
I think it’s insane, incendiary and incredible.
Have you ever seen an ad like that?
Hats off to Saatchis for getting it made.
Hats on to Cadbury’s for replacing it with this load of shit:
Bonkers and possibly brilliant.
I can't make up my mind whether 'succumb to the crumb' is triumphantly dumb (in a good way)or just a bit silly.
what a load of bollocks
The greatest confectionary ad ever made.
It's simultaneously arty and funny and that's what makes it so good. The script would have been ordinary. The treatment of it by all those involved is pitch perfect and completely awesome.
That's just a bit of good old fashioned fun.
Well done Campbell and Claser.
His cock should have been made of flake and he should have been carrying a trident with flake "prongs."
Missed an easy goal there.
I think it's a great ad for flake, all apart from the very corny "succumb to the crumb" in that rubbish typeface at the end. It's a very watchable bit of film and which actually gives you a product benefit: eating a flake is an orgasmic experience.
What's Brand playing at?
its gone!
Little bit coprophagic at the end no?
I think it's in that typeface to give it a more old fashioned Hanmmer House of Horror/ Dennis Wheatcroft feel. I may be wrong.
Its not on Campaign anymore. Anyone have another link?
@ Gordon: I hope so.
It does seem to have been pulled again but I hope those of you who saw it noticed the way the devil sort of collected up his genitals before he made his way down the steps.
Clarsy!
Oh Dear.
Presumably the 'sell' had been that this creative treatment would 're-energise the brand'; 'bring it right up to date' & that international requirements were also well catered for as there would only be a single 'super' to change in the final frames: so highly cost effective as well.
The initial concept research probably didn't include the music, which adds considerably to the frenetic & diabolic atmosphere. Presumably the women also didn't appear to be merely a bunch passive ghouls either, as the whole point of Flake's campaigns for the past trillion years has been secret individual consumption & enjoyment by individual, younger women.
Then, of course, the Director got hold of the script, ignored research findings & any subsequent messages the client may have given at the Pre-Production meeting about the importance of ensuring that the target audience \(those young women again) remained heroines- and went off to shoot a 60 second cinema ad that could front his reel.
The Agency creatives would have been so in love with his fantastical ideas, which would undoubtedly add to their own dream of winning a D&AD Pencil, Cannes Lion etc, they didn't actually notice that the frames as agreed at the Pre -Prod weren't even shot.
So, the client is presented with "The Director's Cut"-and asks " yes, ok, but where's the real one", to which the hapless Account Handler is forced to reply "that's it".
The Director, insulted beyond words that the stupid Philistine client \( who clearly knows nothing about real Art & Cinematography) has had the nerve to reject his 'oeuvre', decides that the world deserves to see his achievements and so he elects to send the 'work' to the Academy, without mentioning this, let alone seeking permission from the client, who has presumably paid for & therefore owns the work.
Then, 'quel suprise', the film was appropriated by a 'visitor' to the site, ensuring wider distribution, and therefore wider recognition for its director.
People, listen up, an ad ain't an ad if the client doesn't buy it & air it. Director's ego trips, paid for with someone else's money, should be viewed as the commercial disasters they undoubtedly are. There should also be recognition that the whole Saatchi Team had failed to deliver to the brand's strategy.
Instead, these OTT, off strategy, arrogant creative ambushes are feted by the advertising industry as 'ads that were before their time', or 'really cutting edge'; the clear implication being that the Industry knows so much more about what's good for a brand than the stupid client.
It's antedeluvian attitudes like this that have encouraged many clients to find far cheaper & more controllable creative providers. The industry will continue to lose in the current economic climate, if it prefers to respect & support directors like Jonathan Glazer over clients and their consumers.
Why so anonymous, Carol Fisher?
(She posted the above under her name on Brand Republic.)
You do seem to have presumed a hell of a lot in your slagging off of this ad.
The director didn't get hold of the script – he co-wrote it.
'People, listen up, an ad ain't an ad if the client doesn't buy it & air it. Director's ego trips, paid for with someone else's money, should be viewed as the commercial disasters they undoubtedly are.'
Um, Carol, dear, Gorilla wasn't bought or aired by the client. It ran because the agency made it and got a good response on YouTube. In fact that entire case study could probably apply to your unfounded assumptions. But – golly gosh – that turned out well because someone had the courage of their convictions.
Don't you think that might be the case here?
(And it's 'quelle surprise', not 'quel suprise'.)
So what exactly was the strategy they missed then, Carol? The ad they ran with looks like an out-take from an endoscopy showreel. If that's an example of an ad that's "on strategy" no wonder they ignored the client.
That told her.
@ Carol
Our screens are filled with on message, on brand, on strategy, client approved, researched, mind numbing shite that has audiences rushing to the toilet for a colossal piss.
People might actually watch this ad, and think 'hey Flake is still around, it's flakey, it's chocolatey and it's a little bit of fun'.
The client's desired ad is posted too. Do you really think it's better?
Is this one and the same? It would explain a lot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/programme_updates/2082196.stm
It's creatively genius, brilliantly ironic, but totally offensive and as far as I'm concerned therefore surely off brief. The idea of being tempted to each chocolate is great, but this just doesn't do it. Try watching it with women and see the reaction, it's not polarising (which implies mixed reactions), this ad swings the needle well and truly south.
Is Carol Fisher a Cadbury employee? Cadbury should take note of the impact this ad has had on those who have seen it and stop acting like Big Brother. People want to see this ad – not because it's a car crash but because it's really powerful and will do a great job for a dying brand
!6:30 Why is this offensive?
My only assumption can be that in using the image of the devil, you alienate a large proportion of your market. Those that practice religion more rigorously will find this ad quite vile (idiots that they are).
It's a total triumph – I fucking LOVE it!
Every woman I showed it to laughed a bit uncomfortably and then said 'fuck off'.
If the client went for it and ran it we'd have called them brave and given everyone a slap on the back and told the team how wonderful they are.
If it offends your target audience it's a pile of shit. We're not artists. Using other peoples money to make art isn't what we do.
I think it's great. I'd like to have seen more shots of the girls with the chocolate cum on their faces mind. But being a bloke would wouldn't I?
Would it be fair to think that it's a touch self indulgent?
Hey Ben, I'm not sure if it's the same Carol Fisher, but if it is, you have a very high brow readership. carol, according to my google search, was (in 2001) director of communications at the COI.
here's her personal details, as supplied by her in a campaign article about her. it may help explain her point of view. or not.
Lives: Thames Ditton
Car: B registered Mercedes 28 E. "I'd love an Audi convertible, but I
don't think the Cabinet Office would stump up for that."
Family: A "significant other", plus a brother and sister.
Relaxing: Travelling. "I've visited 43 countries." Weekend walking in
Wiltshire and Sussex.
Recent reading: An Accidental MP by Martin Bell. Music and Silence by
Rose Tremain.
Favourite TV: BBC Ten O'Clock News. "It's compulsory." Prime Suspect,
Judge John Deed. "Anything that mixes history and faraway places."
Favourite ad: Benson & Hedges' "swimming pool". "I loathe and detest
smoking, but it's a beautiful ad."
Dream job: Managing director of the upmarket travel company Abercrombie
& Kent.
Hurricane Carol is the nearest there is to a post-Menopausal Dave Trott. Media, agency, heading up Courage and the COI, she's been there, done that and got the t-shirt, so get blogging and share, Ms Fisher.
My two cents? Its the sort of thing that played well on the big screen in 'Night of the Ad Eaters' 20 years ago when we thought, 'Blimey, those foreigners get away with all sorts of mischief that we can't at Lintas'.
I like the film.
But I fail to see how Saatchi could possibly spend a million pounds of the client's money without delivering something the client was prepared to run? What a horrendous mess. Were the client not on the shoot? We're they not taken through things step by step?
The whole thing sounds incredibly old fashioned. No team work or collaboration at all.
And I totally agree with the point Carol made. There's no such thing as a good ad that never ran. Half the job is getting a client on board and enthusiastic and making them feel like they have part ownership in the creative process. Clearly that never happened so all they got out of it was a million quid short film that only ad wankers will see.
Bad job all round and I would imagine agency, production company and client are all to blame in equal measures.
Dear Carol,
I used to be the joint CD on Abercrombie and Kent.
It's probably not the dream job you think it is. Their offices are in some hole just outside Bristol and although the marketing guys were very nice, if I were you I'd upgrade your dream to 'Owner of Abercrombie and Kent', then you can have all the fancy holidays you want without the chore of being their client.
Much love,
Ben x
Genius. What an indictment that a once brave client has shrivelled up and succumbed to mediocrity by binning this.
They can't pretend that they did not sign off the idea and treatment, or not attend the shoot…which is standard practice. So even more of an indictment that they did not understand what they were co creating. Take some blooming responsibility.
Brilliant and brave work.
Anon 16.54: "People want to see this ad – not because it's a car crash but because it's really powerful and will do a great job for a dying brand"
No. People want to see this ad because it was banned and so people are talking about it. I bet you a million quid that if this ad actually got put on TV everyone on this blog would be slagging it off (as always). Its only because it's a symbol of an idea being crushed that people are sucking it off. Bottom line is it was off brief and wrong for the brand therefore its should not be judged as an ad for Flake. It never happened. An ad has to happen to be judged as an ad. And the one Fallon did is better – women LIKE it and, it seems, HATE Glazer's one. After all they are the fucking people buying this shitty chocolate bar.
the problem here runs very deep.
basically, and please, this is intended seriously, women don't have a sense of humour about themselves.
it's alright for women to demean men in ads. that's funny isn't it?
well actually, yes, sometimes it is, if it's a funny idea – i can laugh at myself if i'm being demeaned. i could list plenty of ads that show men as being dumb, lovable fools – particularly if they are father's. some of them are quite sweet. most are really boring and not funny (which is why i can't immediately list one, except that gas campaign with the dad going round the house trying to switch off lights and save money and being treated by his kids like he's a moron)
but do it the other way round and… wow, i dare not even rip the plaster off quickly.
unfortunately, the target market is people like carol, and these people take themselves way too seriously. look at the size of her comment – that's some serious thought. too much thought. and judging by her interests, she's a highly competitive person (i've visited 43 countries, don't you know?) with a warped sense of entertainment (favourite program is the ten o'clock news and prime suspect, which makes her a cross between a bbc late night newsreader and helen mirren, who is brilliant, but is banned from smiling in any movie or tv show she ever appears in).
i suppose my point is that carol's view is AS biased as a man's.
oh, and MD of a luxury travel company?? not exactly a blue sky thinker.
sorry carol.
not really.
Ben, do you have a day job? Reason I ask is that you must have written at least a thousand well-crafted words in the last 24 hours on a number of topics, while I've barely managed to come up with a couple of headlines and four lines of body copy. Where do you get the time?
A thousand words is about three quarters of an hour's work.
I wrote the posts around an early lunch in the middle of doing some scripts at my day job.
I've also done 1000 words of my next novel. There's plenty of time in the day if you don't waste it reading my blog (smiley face etc.)
There's some complicated stuff going on here. Personally, having been asked to do my fair share of advertising to women, humour and irony have always been off limits. Now in my experience that is a massive representation of how women actually are but is a prevalent way in which they are perceived, in advertising at least. I have always thought that the differences between men and women are not as great as advertisers imagine them to be. Besides, how many ads witlessly represent women as being strong by presenting men as fools? Lots. Which does us both down. I'd welcome a woman's view on this and I'm keen to know what they think of the ad. I hope they like it as much as I do.
the client were on the shoot but were treated like second class citizens, hence the client never felt included or part of the process to be honest.
i think a certain Producer?!?!? should take a lot of the responsibility for this. His role is to help and facilitate the creative process whilst managing the clients expectations but i'm afraid he got so lost up the directors bottom, this pile of crap was produced and promptly dispatched into the round file…
at one point they so lost their way, they even asked for 100,000 to buy a Lamborghini just so the devil could blow it up, taking the piss or what???
oh also a on a side note, its never a good idea to put the client in a shitty hotel whilst the production company and agency stayed in swanky swanksville. That was their first mistake. of many.
what of the ad? looks like a shitty film you might see on TCN on a sunday afternoon to me.
So is there still anywhere to see this ad? Did anyone do one of those Youtube rips? Not that I have any idea why you would have done.
Someone obviously rates this film and wants it to get airtime. It appears on Academy website, then is removed very quickly, then re-appears on Campaign website, and then is removed very quickly. Where else will the source place it. Maybe they'll buy a spot on X Factor.
Harsh reality. A Director was given creative freedom with a great idea but delivered a terrible ad that they couldn't air.
It cost an Agency a very high profile and important Client (which tells you that they probably persuaded the Client to give the Director creative freedom), let it go.
#fail
Well, I'd imagine that most of the people involved are quite proud of the ad and therefore somewhat frustrated that no one will see it.
I guess we're all entitled to our opinions but the feedback I've had seems overwhelmingly positive.
I think it's very unusual for Flake, but then so was Gorilla for Dairy Milk. But there must have been something wrong with the work leading up to this that made the client agree to a change.
As a fan of noble experiments, I'd like to see more of this. Maybe it won't work for everyone, but I can't even remember a Flake ad since the bath one. This would stand out and get people talking and that's what you need to get people to choose Flake over Toffee Crisp or Bounty – put it front of mind when they get to the chocolate shelf.
Would most Flake buyers be put off by this? I would be surprised if they think that far into it.
'Where's my moment of reclining, solo indulgence?' It's been replaced by a batshit devil, now suck it up.
He could of blown up Robert Senior's new ¬£100,000 car instead….
Just watched the Glazer Flake ad.
Fuck me.
Its the best thing I've seen for a LONG time, in and out of advertising.
My heart goes out to the creatives that got it made and then watched it pulled.
They'd probably already booked their tickets to Cannes…
Anon 08.21. You are spot on. You must of worked/work at Saatchi's as all that is true.
14.45
A long long long post. Yet you are well off the mark.
Anon 8.21 "what of the ad? looks like a shitty film you might see on TCN on a sunday afternoon to me"
That's one of the reasons the ad os fucking great.
And Glazer and Campbell asking for £100,000 to blow up a Lamborgini is exactly why they are both fucking great.
This debate has probably run its course but clearly there are some people out there, and I can see you from here, who think advertising is better now than it used to be because it's more responsible. Stop. You're ruining everything.
damn, it's been taken down. me want see! flake is the crack cocaine of chocolate.
The Lamborghini was in the new Sony ad instead.
Why should we give a shit about being on brief all the time – maybe this wasn't but it would of sure stood out from all the other mind numbing crap thats out there.
Ben,
I can't believe you deleted your shout out to Damo in the post. He must be gutted.
Sincerely,
Not Damo (But someone who feels for him)
Oops.
Not sure how that happened.
It's back in now.
I am a woman. I fucking love this ad. Ken Russell just rang me to say he wishes he had directed fucking this ad. He's crying in his bathroom about it right now. And then he's going to have a wank.
Anyone know where the ad can be found?
I can't make up my mind whether 'succumb to the crumb' is triumphantly dumb
Please forgive my well meaning but somewhat lame friend.
Keep up the good work, I like your writing.
nice post. thanks.
it goes to show that people complain about everything they see on television but the
whole idea of an devilish character that’s so cartoonish by dancing an luring heavenly
beauties writhing on all fours chowing on seductive chocolate is hilarious you can tell
it was all silly acting in this campaign and nobody complained about princess Jasmin
throwing herself in an fake seductive manor at Jaffar in Aladdin and it was laughable of seeing
brides of Dracula having sex with the furniture in Dracula dead and loving it of course the girls
was begging for it to say that was part of the story of want lust and desire it’s human nature
but I get it that it wasn’t shown at an appropriate time but at the end it was just played for laughs .