Many decades ago Truman Capote said "That's not writing, that's typing" about the output of Jack Kerouac.
I'm not going to judge the merits of Kerouac's work. I'm more interested in Capote's pejorative.
How much of what we do in advertising today actually helps a brand? In brief, can we look at our output and that of our agency and say "that's not advertising, that's noise."
I think about this as we as an industry produce tweet events, memes, long-form, short-form and no-form that influences nobody.
It's pretty simple, really.
Advertising that's not noise should lead to some sort of value for the brand.
Either through sales (preferable) or fealty.
I've just recently produced some commercials for a client that is in freefall. For the first time in many quarters, they've sold product. They've sold out product.
Now they're questioning if the spots are on brand, or if they work with the larger brand campaign.
I've got news for you.
A brand without sales is like a sail without wind.
Useless.
3 comments:
if I'm guessing the brand and relate it to some work you've shown recently it seems to me that it's more on brand than most we've some from them the last year or two. Finally.
Perhaps an opportunity to update the brand to match the successful spots...
~Graham
It's like the famous economist's quote: "Yes it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"
Post a Comment