The Press Grand Prix was won by Media Arts Lab, OMD and Apple.
When I first saw that work I said it was the best press campaign I’d seen in years.
I love it as a customer and as a MAL CD.
Congratulations to the many people involved.
Comments disabled.
You know I can’t put them up, but check the GP and Golds here.
I could be wrong, but I’d call bullshit on Sharpie, Stihl, L’Oreal, the printer ink thing and Schtick.
But I love those Swiss Life ads, and Bancolombia (although they also look like scam).
What do you think?
These are the words I type so I have something to stick the hyperlink on.
And while you’re here, this is an article that is more relevant to Monday’s post, but I know you’re already over that:
Beautifully shot, makes sense and is, as far as I know, original.
That’s a great combination.
Hi Ben,
This being the week of Cannes, many creative people are on the continent who would not otherwise be.
Last week I caught up with a couple of good friends who are now Aussie CDs. Coincidentally both of them did the same thing that I found odd’n’interesting: the work they mentioned having been part of or impressed by was the kind of thing that you would only have seen if you found the time to watch case study films.
I won’t use the real names (combination of anonymity and can’t quite remember the details and don’t want to get them wrong), but as they said, ‘Have you seen Persil Island?’ or ‘He did Smarties House Party’, I looked a little blank. This is not in any way to denigrate these fine achievements, but it’s an interesting illustration of how diverse and award-centric these conversations have now become.
Back in the day you would see a TV ad, or maybe a poster, in real life, then when someone mentioned it you could have a chat about its merits.
Then both scam advertising (no way you’d see that on real TV) and the rise of international work (ditto) meant that you’d have to seek out the work in Lürzer’s or wait for the D&AD annual/One Show to come out (and there were still no case study films to watch). But the number of ads you ‘should’ have seen was still manageable.
Then blogs (such as this one) showed the best ads in the world as soon as they became available. In fact, part of the PR machine for ads feeling big and known deliberately includes these channels, so you might well see the award-y work well before it actually wins anything.
But now we have the rise of the case study film, where so many award schemes require the two-minute explanation of the campaign for it to be successful in any way. Several categories (Branded Innovation etc.) need such films, while categories that never used to (Outdoor) now routinely give explanations about posters that power villages or elaborate stunts that take over a Danish square with old ladies dressed as bikers.
All well and good, but when do you watch them? I assume other ad blogs etc. show these films, but I never really come across them (nor am I particularly keen to do so), except over the next fortnight, when I’ll watch the absolute best on the Cannes website. Then that’s it for another year, and I will be condemned to offer further blank expressions when told about Nike: Project Frottage or Uniqlo Tramp Wank Week.
Apologies in advance.
A couple of days ago an author friend emailed to ask how I make time to write. This was my reply:
I write a fair bit after I’ve gone to bed (11-12:15).
Then I read this interesting blog post on the subject.
To be a little more complete than the above I’d add that I don’t watch a great deal of TV (I think Fashion Police is literally the only programme I refuse to miss, and I do a box set every month or two, but that’s it). Yes, my job is demanding, particularly at the end of the day, but there’s always a bit of time between when I get home (and hopefully put the kids to bed) and when I go to sleep. I try to use it to write because the bottom line is this:
There is no other way to create a novel (or short film, or Lego representation of Yoda).
You have to find the time, and it’s right there, waiting for you to use it.
Of course, the majority of people don’t use their spare time for that purpose, or for anything ‘constructive’, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The point I’m making is to promote one thing only: workability. If you want to do x, be that writing a book, playing with your kids or making dinner, you have to make the time to do it, otherwise it won’t happen.
And that might be stating the obvious, but unfortunately obviousness doesn’t correlate with likelihood.
Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park for the duration of Jurassic Park (thanks, J).
What people are Googling in real time (thanks, G).
Bask in this wonderful guitar playing (thanks, T):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXq4GlHgROQ&feature=share
This site, gangsta slanged (thanks, C).
Best movie phone conversation (thanks, G):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hroUeu4IvpE
Desk safari (thanks, J).
The construction of Disneyland:
Ghost stations of the London Underground (thanks, J).
Amazing Mortal Kombat flick book (thanks, S):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDNjIEU0lFk
And another fine Mortal Kombat link (thanks, A. Another flip book here):
Alf from Home and Away, not quite as I remember him (thanks, A):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eykUVPuDmys
Letterman asks about drums (thanks, O):
Kim Dotcom, the raid (thanks, G):
Over the years of writing this blog I’ve read many comments that suggest one kind of advertising is better or worse than other; that producing mediocre or even shit ads is somehow an awful way to spend your life; that some art forms offer true creativity and are therefore superior to others.
Well, maybe that’s the case, but maybe it’s just bullshit. Is The Wire better than EastEnders? You could certainly find millions who would argue each side of that. Is Dylan better than One Direction? Ditto. And when it comes to art, as in art, does Picasso beat Renoir, Chagall or Rubens? If so, why?
Of course, there is no ultimate measure of such things, only subjective opinions that swirl around looking bigger or smaller, more or less right depending on who is talking and who is listening.
But fuck all that. Let’s lay the order out properly so you know what a valuable or pathetic person you really are:
Art: proper old art like that renaissance stuff comes first, and paintings ahead of sculptures. Then modern stuff, with the more famous being superior to people you’ve never heard of. The more other people say it’s great, the better it is, and that applies to almost all art.
Literature: The old stuff gets the best press. Shakespeare and Dickens (I know Shakespeare’s were plays but it’s writing, innit?) seem to be the giants of the form, then all those nineteenth century Jane Austen/Thomas Hardy/Dostoyevsky/Flaubert types. 20th century guys like Joyce/Fitzgerald/Faulkner/Nabokov/Steinbeck etc. Then modern ones like Amis, Coetzee and Rushdie. Middlebrow people like Nick Hornby come next, followed by commercial fiction, romance and Jordan novels.
Film: modern masters such as Kubrick, Scorsese, Coppola etc. win, but only in their 70s heyday. Then the old greats: Hawks, Welles, Wilder, Ford etc. Then the best of the new, such as the Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson. Then drop down a level in each of those categories and keep going until you reach Michael Bay. Indies always beat blockbusters.
Music: up there with film, but in a different way. Boring people like classical music; cool people like rock. Dylan, Hendrix, The Beatles, all that stuff… You can’t really compare it to Mozart or Beethoven, so don’t even try. Pick your faves and you can make a case for most of them (except Steps and the Vengaboys).
Photography: Classic greats such as Cartier-Bresson, Lartigue, Man Ray, Cappa, Strand etc, then anyone who has worked for Magnum, then the reportage fellas like Salgado and McCullin, then modern people like Gursky, who are further down the list because they use post, the cheating bastards.
TV: this is now close to passing photography. Its only problem is it has yet to make its way into art galleries where it can bask in the reflective glow of the surroundings. Of course stuff like Mad Men, The Wire, Breaking Bad etc. are the current best and best of all time (we’re in a golden age, people; enjoy the fuck out of it). Then there’s old stuff that people say is good, like Our Friends In The North and House of Cards, then good old comedy like Blackadder and Fawlty Towers and finally, everything else.
Advertising: this is the order: cinema, TV, posters, press, experiential wank, radio, digital, below the line. And then: big brands like Apple, VW, Nike etc., then small brands you’ve never heard of, then big brands that are boring and shit, like Asda. So a good ad for Nike in press beats a great ad for Cif in cinema. It’s all about tell-your-mates-ability. Good work is always cooler, but the bigger the brand, the better. Advertising people might care more if you knock a boring brand out of the park, but your mates probably won’t understand why that’s such a big deal. In the world of advertising people good work for shitty brands is given three extra marks out of ten for difficulty, but like I said: no one else gives a toss
Of course, none of the above is true. I just made it up to give you something to fume/chortle about on a Thursday morning.
(Except secretly you know it is all 100% true and it either bruises your soul or makes you swell with pride to admit it.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TrBMb82iv4Q
Interesting campaign, this one.
Comes out of the product in two ways, completely distinctive, simultaneously makes no sense and lots of sense.
What’s not to like?
