Communication Arts annual Advertising issue seems to be chock-full of ads that I don't believe ever ran in legitimate circles. (The East Anchorage Pennysaver doesn't count.) If you are among the legion of regular readers of Ad Aged you know I am an inveterate reader. And the scope of my reading includes "women's books," magazines like "Redbook," "Home & Garden" etc. Yet I have never seen a clever ad for Tide the likes of which dot the aforementioned issue of CA.
All of which leads me to pen this ditty:
"I think that I have never seen,
A Granger ad in a magazine.
It doesn't matter how hard I looks,
They only run in annual books."
5 comments:
I suspect you're right. Many award winning ads are done for just that. They may have run, in the best of cases, in some obscure magazine somewhere just to qualify in case someone checks. Even so it's not that easy to come up with clever ads and produce them nicely, but it's certainly not to compare with real life in advertising. But as long as our industry keeps rewarding people for such work with higher salaries, safer jobs, trips to Cannes and leading positions, this will continue. As we also know, some not so insignificant agencies even support the behavior by eating the cost. A creative reputation has never hurt an agency. And with the trade press making a big deal out of the Gunn report and all the major awards, this is what the industry has become. An industry living in two parallel universes.
What are your thoughts on ads that only run in competitions, George? Always felt a bit like cheating to me...
Never mind! Just read your previous post. Did I mention I think you're great, George?
Totally agree. The all time low must be this ad from Boone Oakley:
http://www.minegoestoeleven.com/2008/04/08/fake-om-fake/
The ad is interesting in two regards. Firstly, it's a fake. That fact alone should disqualify the ad from all future award shows.
Secondly, not only do the agency admit that it's a fake – they're proud of it too. So proud in fact that they acctually think the jury of The One Show Annual are stupid enough to reward it and put it in the book.
Now, if you're cynical you can dismiss it as a momentary lapse of judgement and forget about it. But if you're worried about the industry's credibility, as I am, you can rightfully accuse the agency for doping. Ad doping. And that's a disgrace.
Obviously the agency's goal is to attract new busines and qualified staffers. All this under the false pretence of honesty.
Will it succeed?
I hope not. My prediction is that the ad will bite them in the ass.
The link didn't fit into the page. Here's the rest:
com/2008/04/08/fake-om-fake/
Post a Comment