Linked in - The ultimate giveaway

You always know when someone is looking for a new job, because suddenly their profile gets ludicrously updated, right up until that one meeting last week where they did something really well and their current boss totally overlooked them.

Mark my words, next time one of your colleagues radically updates their Linked-In profile, they'll be gone within 3 months.

2 double shots?

Come on, NHS - this advert is NOT going to stop teenagers drinking or look up information on safer drinking habits, either.

All they're going to do is laugh in your face for suggesting that 5 pints will make you piss your pants, and 2 double shots will see you coated in your own vomit.

Those stats must've come from the client because there's no way anyone in the ad industry would think that amount of booze would have such consequences.

What is wrong with you?!

I went on some very good training in Digital advertising today. I was, however, astonished at the lack of knowledge about even the most basic internet phenomena amongst my peers and colleagues.

I'm not talking about anything advanced like coding your own website or fiddling with meta-data (incidentally a phrase no-one had heard of) but I was incredibly disappointed that my fellow admen and adwomen needed to be shown how to use Twitter and what iGoogle is. These were people in their 20s.

I have no words...and they're wondering why their agencies aren't picking up more digital briefs, or why they're struggling to sell in digital ideas to clients. Maybe it's because you're using a FUCKING TYPEWRITER and FAXING the work over to them?

Rant over.

Bags for life

 

You know when you’re in town, or in the supermarket, or at bingo, you know anywhere with a high quantity of old women, you see them with their big carrier bags. They’ve got strong handles, the sort of bag you will actually exchange money for, they’ve got patterns and pictures on them, and emblazoned across them is the motto of the biddies that carry them: BAG FOR LIFE.  I can't help but think to myself "You certainly are, love. You certainly are."

The scariest product demo ever

Anyone seen that advert for Senokot constipation cure? It's essentially a demo ad, but it is an incredibly scary one that has me crossing every part of my body that I'll never get constipated. There’s a woman with a big handbag and it goes “imagine this bag is your stomach, over the day it’s getting full of food” and so on, and this woman’s carrying around this big handbag full of food and other crap representing her constipated stomach.

And then it goes on to advertise the magical cure they’re selling and that you’ll be free of constipation: seems straight forward so far. The thing is, to demonstrate how it works, the woman gets the bag, the bag that’s full to the brim with food, and tips it upside down into the bin! 

Imagine that was your stomach! WHUMP! There ya go! All your fucking stomach contents BANG, straight out of your arse. You better be near a toilet when you take these tablets cause you’re gonna lose a fucking kidney! I couldn’t believe it. I’d rather be a big bag full of food than have the entire contents of my stomach leave my body in under a second. Fuck that!

Creativity today

I love the internet. I've spent so much time on the internet that after a lifetime of perfect vision I have rather prematurely started to need glasses to see properly. Admittedly I'm not too cut up about it because I now look more like a planner than I used to, and have seriously increased gravitas, particularly when I remove them as I unleash a powerful insight. Or at least that's how it looks when I practise in front of the mirror.

Where I was going with this whole internet thing, though, is that it is seriously hindering creativity in the advertising industry. Not through any fault of its own, mostly because some lacklustre creatives are using it for ideas, instead of actually having their own. What used to be an exercise of cracking a brief to bring a brand alive has now turned into an exercise of finding the best way to crowbar that cool thing they saw on the internet into their upcoming campaign.

Yes, stealing off the internet is the new in thing! It's fast, it's exciting and it's a piece of fucking piss. Thankfully, the majority of the unwashed masses don't spend so much time online and they haven't seen the latest viral, cool video or funny image that has been sent around, so when you present it to them as an ad campaign they'll happily lap it up and think whoever created it must be a fucking genius. For the geekier among us, who have reached the end of the internet several times, it is painful to watch and painful to hear people talking about. It's mostly bad because when someone is harping on about an obvious internet steal, there's really no way to answer truthfully without coming across as a cock:

"Yeah, but they stole the idea off the internet"

"I saw that online 3 years ago"

"Do you not go online?!"

And so on and so forth.

Now, I present to you my 3 worst offenders for internet thievery:

At number 3, it's Berocca:

 

Which is a direct steal from this song by OK Go, which became much more of a hit online than it ever was in the charts, due entirely to its superbly awesome video:

There are a few reasons why this one is quite so painful: the first being simply that it's so obviously a rip, down to the number of treadmills and the moves they are doing. At least if you're going to steal an idea try and make it your own, this ad is more like a cover-version than a tribute. If they'd used the OK Go music it might not have seemed so cheeky, and would instead have been a little nod of the cap. Actually, who am I kidding, that'd still be fucking rude. 

The second thing is that it really doesn't have anything to do with the product - You on a good day? What the fuck has that got to do with twatting around on a few treadmills in the middle of the street? That's not me on a good day! On a good day I sit around the flat in my pants drinking beer and watching Red Dwarf repeats on Dave. If I found myself in a busy square, wearing a suit and skiing on a treadmill in front of bewildered onlookers I would consider myself to be having a very bad day!

Next on my list of outright thievery is Saatchi & Saatchi's much loved T-Mobile advert where they had the extremely original idea of doing a flash mob, because someone heard that flash mobs were really cool (about 5 years ago). 

I have to admit, I love the execution - they did a really good job of executing a truly unoriginal idea - because it is a well done flash mob, it's funny, it took people by surprise, and it created a lot of buzz for the agency and the brand. Apparently, it also worked incredibly well as an advert, and the weekend after it ran T-Mobile enjoyed the most visits to their stores they'd ever had on a Saturday.

What I do not love, though, is that they clearly just had an idea they really wanted to do and so they crowbarred it into the brand's current campaign as awkwardly as possible just so they could justify doing it. The brand's current slogan is of course "Life's for sharing" which apparently ties into this flash mob because some people there were filming it on their mobiles, phoning their friends and sending texts to talk about it. Apparently.

They weren't sharing life, they were probably ringing their boss to apologise that they'd be late for their meeting because a bunch of muppets were blocking the way to the platform and they'd missed their train! Yes, life is for sharing, and apparently really old ideas that took off on the internet are for sharing, though whether or not they'll be sharing any of the credit is even more questionable than the idea that none of the "members of the public" on their phones were stooges.

And third on my list has to be this BBC6 advert:

Really cool, eh? But not quite as cool as the original, which was not only better executed, but also had that little thing that originals tend to have that elevates them above copies: Originality

"6 music...Get an earful"...An earful of what? Guilt? Unoriginality? Chlamydia? Should a youth radio station not be trying to be original, fresh and exciting instead of copying something they found on the internet and doing a half arsed job of it. 

Now, I've singled these 3 out but there are countless others out there and I'm worried that it's becoming far too much of a trend among younger creatives (or maybe they're older and lazier, but it seems more likely that it'll be the young internetty types). It seems far too many are seeing cool, funny, original, innovative ideas on the internet and instead of thinking "wow, I wish I could do something as cool as that, I'm going to try really hard to be that creative" they think "I bet no one at the office has seen this yet, and the client definitely won't have. They'll think I'm well fucking creative if I present this to them." 

STOP IT!! YOU'RE NOT FUCKING CREATIVE!! IF YOU ARE COPYING AN IDEA YOU SAW ON THE INTERNET YOU ARE A FRAUD AND YOUR PARENTS WOULD BE SPINNING IN THEIR GRAVES IF THEY KNEW. IF YOUR PARENTS AREN'T DEAD THEY WOULD DIE OF SHAME IF THEY WERE EVER TO FIND OUT!

Thankfully none of the creatives I work with have felt the need to steal creative ideas off the internet yet, because they are all very talented and original thinkers. Also, if they even so much as try to present an idea from the internet to me, I will publicly depants them as the unoriginal bastards they would be. They wouldn't stand a chance, because I've seen so much of the internet that I was bored enough to actually sit here and write some more internet so that I would have something else to read next time I go on the internet. 

Edit: Just watching TV and I saw another rip of the original living graffiti: this one REALLY has nothing to do with it, they obviously just wanted to use the cool idea for something - ANYTHING. These thieves know no bounds.

Unileverage

Giant umbrella company, and all round enormous conglomerate Unilever is to start putting its logo in adverts for its products, which until now have lived completely separate  lives.  http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/884449/Unilever-debut-logo-consumer-ads-March/989BD06090ABCD5E84FC9234B1061C03/

I have blogged previously about Unilever and a disparity in its communications from its sub-brands. See the post "Unilever Hypocrisy" to read about how one savvy consumer connected the line between Dove - real beauty - and Lynx - real sexy ladies gyrating for you with a single spray of deodorant. 

This previous incident wasn't really an incident at all, because although Dove and Lynx are owned by the same parent company they are completely separate brands, run by completely different chains of command and with the Unilever logo appearing only on the packaging, there was really no Unilever brand to speak of, nor to be damaged. To 99% of the public, the Unilever logo was (and still is) something of a mystery. It's something that appears on the back of a lot of their products but it has no real meaning.

Now, adding it to television advertising (presumably to be followed by print, outdoor and in-store media) will start to create a brand. Unilever will start to represent something, and the previously innocuous logo that hid shyly at the back of the pack will be standing proudly forward with something to say. 

Unilever's reasoning is that their research shows that if a consumer already buys products from them, they are more likely to buy another product if they know it is by the same company. What I think they've neglected to think about is that while people who regularly buy Uncle Ben's rice may be more open to buying Uncle Ben's sauces, the same logic doesn't necessarily apply one tier higher up in the branding hierarchy.

• Is a lover of Skittles more likely to buy Sheeba for his cat if he knows they're both owned by Masterfoods?

• Is a guy who always shaves with Gillette going to be more open to buying Ariel detergent if he knows they're both owned by Procter and Gamble?
  

The answer, surely, is a resounding no. So why do Unilever think that slapping a logo in their adverts is going to increase brand loyalty and turn Dove users into PG Tips drinkers (incidentally, I think Procter and Gamble should buy the PG Tips brand and rebrand them P&G Tips).

All they're going to do is open themselves up to a level of transparency that they aren't used to, and they'll open the doors for a thousand more connections being made between their brands that aren't so friendly. 

• Got a laundry brand talking about environmental friendliness, but also own a battery company doing nothing to prevent millions of disposable batteries being sent to landfill each year?

• Own the leading ice cream brand AND the leading diet food brand? 

• Do you have one brand telling women they're beautiful as they are and another telling them to slap more make-up on?

You bet your arse the big 3 companies do, which is exactly why they ought to keep their mouths shut if they don't want to unleash the wrath of the savvy shopper. Just to pick one example of terrible crossovers in the brand portfolio - how exactly does Unilever think it's going to look when people make connections between Pot Noodle and Weight Watchers. On the one hand you have "the slag of all snacks" and on the other you've got "who ate all the snacks?".

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I think in the age of the internet and the savvy shopper, with power more firmly in the hands of consumers than ever before, Unilever may be opening up a huge can of worms and causing itself far more trouble than it's worth. Now is not the time to connect all your brands that have vastly different messages, and it certainly isn't a time to bring the messages of your brands closer together to fit snugly under one corporate umbrella. 

Now is the time to strengthen the brands you already have, to make them stand more firmly for what they stand for than ever before. Denigrating their strength by highlighting an overarching hypocrisy and lack of consistency seems like a very bad idea indeed.

 

Loving the brands you work on

Lately I've found myself becoming somewhat evangelical about brands that 6 months ago I didn't give a shit about. I find myself almost getting into fights to defend brands that a year ago I'd never heard of. I find myself buying extra products from a brand to help them make it through the credit crunch, when before I wouldn't have used their products if they were free.

What is wrong with me?! I'm sorry to say that I'm starting to come down with a case of something that it's all too easy to catch in this industry (though most consumers seem to be immune to it). No, it's not Hepatitis C...I'm starting to become infatuated with the brands I'm working on. 

Just as a student falls madly in love with the MILFy P.E teacher who doesn't wear a bra, or like housemates who drunkenly pass out of the "Friend Zone", familiarity can lead to love. As a planner you become intimately acquainted with the brands you work on (unlike the AMs who become intimately acquainted with the clients). You see their strengths, their weaknesses (stop me before I say "opportunities" and "threats") and you see their inner beauty. 

Advertising can be a persona that hides the real nature of the brand. Much like Nelson Muntz from the Simpsons puts on a tough guy act, when deep down he's just a nice kid who likes watching soap operas with his mum and misses his dad. As a planner you see behind the persona, in fact you help to create the persona, but often clients force you to hide the brand's true nature, its true beauty, because they want you to talk about their new initiative, how they're better value than brand X because although they're twice the price they last 3 times as long, and so on and so forth.

The sad thing is that for some brands this means they've lost control of their own reputation. There are many great things to be said about them, things that would make the public love them, but years of indifference, silence, or talking about the wrong thing entirely, has signed away their reputation for consumers and competitors to do with as they see fit. 

If consumers knew my brands how I know them, they'd love and trust them as much as I do. For all that the brands and advertising gurus talk about "transparency" in advertising, we've got a hell of a long way to go before some brands step into the light and shine because of what they really are.

(And then there are brands that are 100% turds rolled in glitter, but that's another story...)

How to get work experience in advertising

Following this incredibly good guide on writing a CV for your first advertising job penned by my better half - Copybot -  I thought I'd elaborate a little, first of all with a guide on how to get work experience, later to be followed by how to get into Account Planning specifically. 

N.B. This is a guide on how to get work experience in Account Management or Planning, the route for Creatives is very different.

So, if you want to get some work experience, the first thing you need to do is start sending out begging letters to as many agencies as you can think of. I applied to dozens, heard back from about 15, and was actually given experience at 6, so be prepared for a lot of rejection as well as a whole lot of nothing from the agencies that can't be bothered to reject you.

Your first port of call the IPA website where you can find a list of agencies, google them to find their contact details. Importantly, you should also put in the extra effort to find someone to address it to - either the head of the department you want to get into, or the head of Human Resources. If these names aren't on the agency's own website visit Brand Republic and do some searching (but make sure the article is recent, and not about them getting made redundant!)

Post your begging letter to them, don't bottle it and just send an email. The average head of department will receive somewhere in the region of 1000 emails a week, but only 4 or 5 letters and a couple if industry magazines in the post. Even though it may seem a little antiquated (especially if you're applying to a digital agency) it is a very simple way to be noticed and not lost amongst all the spam.

Of course, like a street begger, your begging letter has to be good. Just as I always find myself more likely to give money to a busker or a Big Issue seller, than a begger who just lies there in a drunken stupor with a Starbucks cup clasped in his one remaining hand, you're more likely to get work experience if you put the effort in.

Here is the letter I wrote to people, and how I stood out: 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 reasons why giving me work experience is better than traditional slave labour

1.    By using traditional slave labour you are required to feed, clothe and even house your workers. Not only will I work for no money but I will wear my own clothes (mostly), manage my own nutritional needs (keeping all 3 major food groups covered – beans, toast and cereal) and sleep in my own house (rented, of course).

2.    Slaves take no interest in the work they’re doing (I’d go as far as saying they don’t want to work in advertising at all!) I take great interest in the advertising world: above the line, below the line and online. As a daily reader of advertising blogs and an IPA newsletter subscriber I am very in tune with the advertising world and the wider world. Slaves never keep up with current affairs.

3.    When keeping slaves you’re always looking over your shoulder, trying to keep the government off your back (imperialist scum). Not only is giving me work experience 100% legal, but you’ll never have to apologise for it. In fact, you’ll come out looking saintly for helping a struggling graduate get a leg up on the career ladder.

4.    Slaves have no ambition or drive. It has been my life goal for many years to work in advertising. I will work incredibly hard for you just to get a taste of the industry and to make myself a great candidate for your agency.

5.    Slaves have no sense of humour! Not only will I work hard for you but I’ll try my best to keep you entertained too. A member of the comedy society at university and regular performer of stand up comedy, I am outgoing, hardworking, inquisitive and perfect for the industry. Also, I make a mean cup of tea.

Don’t flog yourself making this decision: slavery has never been so easy! Give me a call (how many slaves can say that?) I’ll work so hard for you that by the end of our time together you won’t want to give me my freedom!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter worked incredibly well, and was cited as the reason I was given a chance every time I was called in for an interview.

Here's my checklist for writing a good begging letter:

• Be keen - there are hundreds of people vying for every work experience place in an agency. If you want to be the person they pick you have to make it damn clear that this means the most to you and you're going to work your arse off for them.

• Be open and honest about what you're after - don't tip-toe around the issue, be confident and assertive about the fact that you want a job in advertising and you want work experience to make you the best possible candidate for the industry.

• Be as funny and entertaining as you can - not always easy, but I believe everyone has a bit of humour in them, just try not to be annoying.

• Be yourself - this one is as old as the hills but it's so important. If, for instance, someone sent my letter as their own, they would soon be found out at interview because it wouldn't fit with their personality at all

• Be willing to work for free! If you're expecting to get paid, think again. As much as it sucks, there's hundreds of people who would take your place for free. Some would probably even pay the agency, if the option existed (note to self: propose idea to HR department and demand 50% of the money).

Follow Copybot's guide for your CV and throw in a well written covering letter to the effect of "Dear Important Person, please find attached a letter explaining exactly why you should give me some work experience, yours sincerely Desperate Graduate"  and you're ready to seal those envelopes.

My god's harder than your god

Love it or loathe it, religion is just one of those facts of life like mildew and premature ejaculation. The same goes for Atheism, Humanism, Science, Fact, Reason, Evidence and a whole bunch of other crazy ideas that people use to fill their sad, lonely, godless lives.

With the recent Atheist adverts causing such a metaphorical storm (only god - or Blackberry - could cause an ACTUAL storm) I thought it might be pertinent to write a post about their effect on the world, the religious, and the heathens. After seeing today that no less than 3 Christian groups have launched their own responses to the Atheist campaign, I felt it was not only pertinent, but extra-pertinent, with added pertness, to post about it today.

So, the recipe for disaster goes like this:

• Step 1: Religious groups have been advertising for years, with messaging ranging from the positive, such as "And Jesus said I am the lamb of god, so enjoy me with a bit of mint sauce: Gordon 3:15" to the negative, such as "And the lord said that if you don't believe in him he will be very upset: Annoyed from Manchester 3:16".

• Step 2: Many years later a group of like-minded Atheists think it might be nice if they had some representation in the world of advertising by spreading their own message. An online campaign starts and thousands donate their own money, which soon turns into an enormous fund for financing the creation and running of the ads. They all like the idea of someone actually putting out advertising stating that their isn't a god at all, but in the end they bottle it and decide to put in the word "probably" so that they don't upset too many people.

• Step 4: MASSIVE CONTROVERSY AND OUTRAGE ENSUES!

• Step 5: Atheists around the world have a good laugh at the amount of offence caused by Atheists spreading their (actually very positive) message, despite the fact that religious groups have been doing so for years. One man even complained to the ASA on the grounds that "they have no proof to back up their claim" meaning one poor soul (probably an intern, if my early industry experience is anything to go by) is tasked with the job of determining whether or not there is in fact a god. The fact that religious groups have been allowed to advertise despite not having an ounce of proof between them (for proof denies faith, and without faith god is nothing) never occurred to this fellow, and presumably if the ASA had enforced a ban on the Atheist ads, they would've had to ban all religious communications.
  

• Step 6: Three separate Christian groups release their own ads hitting back at the Atheist campaign. One of them even uses the same art direction and parodies the copy to prove their point.

• Step 7: Hilarity ensues.

Yes, you read it correctly. So secure are they in their faith that they've felt threatened enough by the Atheist adverts to release their own messages to combat them. Perhaps there has been a sudden rise in people thinking for themselves, which has caused them to panic and realise the need to fight back.

Here is one:






As you can see, it offers compelling proof for the existence of god - that is, once upon a time someone wrote in a book that to say (not even with your mouth, but with your circulatory system) that there is no god, that makes you a fool. Not convinced? What about if it parodied the Atheist ad and said:

"There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life."


I don't know why, but I find it very difficult to read that without hearing the voice of a small child stamping its feet saying "Nuh-uh, IS TOO a god!". I'm struggling to understand why they felt the need to put these adverts out as a response to the Atheist campaign, and the parody/mocking nature of it certainly doesn't seem very Christian.

The best way, in my opinion, to analyse this is to look at it in terms of brands. In the red corner you have the Atheist brand. In the blue corner you have the Christianity brand. So let's take a closer look at these brands and try to figure out what is really going on here.

The Atheist brand is undoubtedly a challenger brand. They have lower sales, they're newer on the scene, and the only way they're going to gain any market share is to target younger consumers who are yet to make their mind up about which brand they prefer, OR to convert consumers from another brand to their product. The way they've gone about this is by attacking not only the leading brand, but all of their competitors. Competitor brands to Atheism all use the RTB(IG) - Reason To Believe (In God) that you can only enjoy your life and enjoy eternal salvation if you are to buy their brand. As challenger brands are wont to do, Atheism has turned the industry on its head and given an entirely new RTB, which is that you can enjoy your life without having to worship an almighty deity who not only watches you masturbate, but tuts and wags his finger at you while you do it (there's nothing worse than a disapproving pervert).

Christianity on the other hand is the leading brand. It was essentially the first in the market, and has led ever since - other brands are slowly beginning to steal bits of market in the UK, but these are mostly through new customers (immigrants) rather than through any sort of conversion.

And now for a very geeky, but surprisingly accurate analogy: Christianity is Microsoft, and Atheism is Apple. What Christianity would like is very similar to Microsoft's goal, but instead of a PC on every desk, it's a god in everyone's heart. Christianity is the dad at the disco, it is stuffy, old and boring and when you really make it think about the answer to something it breaks down and gives you the blue screen of death. Atheism is younger, sexier and it shares your belief of thinking different(ly) (or in Atheism's case - for yourself).

Apple launched a campaign poking fun at Microsoft, presenting "I'm a mac" vs. "I'm a PC" with fairly accurate personifications of these computers. Microsoft being unoriginal, old-fashioned and not even slightly down with the kids, decided the best course of action would be to respond with parody ads and launch their own "I'm a PC" campaign. I know when I've taken an analogy too far, and I'm getting very close, but there are some definite parallels here:

Apple & Atheism - challenger brands that launch campaigns poking fun at the old-fashioned ways and beliefs of the market leader, encouraging people to think different(ly).

Microsoft and Christianity - market leaders who are very hurt by having fun poked at them, and don't know how to take a good joke, launching parody ads as a way of hitting back at these young upstarts, and failing miserably to connect with real people in the process.


See you in hell, everyone.

Value 2010

It seems that the moment I stopped updating this blog the economy took a nosedive with no apparent respite in sight. I have, therefore, taken the difficult decision to revive it for the good of the country, if not the world.  

Yes, Planbot is back for the greater good. It's revival has nothing to do at all with the meteoric rise of my better half's blog - Copybot - (she came up with both the name Copybot and Planbot - credit where it's due, but then she is the creative one). No sir, I have absolutely not re-started blogging because I'm jealous of all her traffic. Shut up! 

Anyway, as I was saying, the economy has clearly gone to shit and I'm sure we're all painfully aware of it. As a planner I feel that I am doubly aware of it, because not only do I hear about it non-stop as a person, but at work I am bombarded by it. It seems every brief I write these days has to have a value "insight" crowbarred in, otherwise the client will panic that we're going to talk about something other than value in (and I hate this phrase more than you can imagine) "the current climate". 

What particularly bothers me about having to write strategies to speak to consumers in "the current climate" is that middle word - current. Me and my fellow planners are writing briefs for products that won't hit the market until 2010 and beyond - arguably "the future climate". Yet our insights and our strategies are being garnered, written and tested now in what is undoubtedly a very different situation.

 It is generally agreed that we are likely to still be deep in recession come 2010, so one could argue that value messaging will still be relevant, and to a certain extent it probably will be. However, I think it's fairly safe to say that with every brand panicking and desperately trying to ram their value down the public's throats, that by 2010 we are all going to be utterly sick of this type of message.  

And so work is being tested with consumers of 2009 who are still quite happy to see a value message and will happily tick all the right boxes and say that they feel it's entirely relevant to them and they're now more likely to buy Brand A. But surely, if we've learned anything from Britain’s Biggest Discounter, it's that you should stick to what you know, talk about what you're good at and why you're ACTUALLY relevant to your customers, not bend over backwards to be all things to all people regardless of their financial situation. Come 2010 when this work actually goes live, I think it's going to be a very different story: value messaging will have reached saturation and the public will be crying out for something more creative, more relevant to them and for more genuinely altruistic action from brands. 

Only time will tell, but of course now that Planbot is back we can safely assume that the economy will be back on track by the end of the week. You're welcome.

 

57 Sexualities - Oh no, a man kissing a man!

I was bitterly disappointed to find out that the new Heinz mayonnaise advert has received 179 complaints in a week.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/822167/Heinz-male-kiss-TV-ad-sparks-hundreds-complaints/



I'm disappointed for 2 reasons: firstly because I believe it's a genuinely good advert - it has a good mix of humour, intrigue and a little bit of shock, all blended together with a very clear message - using this mayonnaise is like having a New York Deli in your kitchen - it's a good ad and it'd be a shame to see it pulled. Secondly I'm disappointed in my country for being so ridiculously uptight that a 1 second kiss between two men is so utterly shocking that people absolutely have to run from their sofas to their phone and hit speed dial number 4 - the ASA. (Speed dial 1: Mum, Speed dial 2: The Proctologist (sometimes these people get their heads so far up their own arses they can't breathe), Speed Dial 3: Jesus).

179 complaints in a week, for less man-on-man action that you see in the pub on a thursday night. These people complaining seriously need to get out more and discover the country they're actually living in. Homosexuality exists, get used to it! I can't believe that over 1 person every single hour that this ad has been on has felt moved to complain to the ASA.

I've never seen an advert that has annoyed me so much I've felt the need to stand up from the sofa, let alone walk across the room, find a phone number for the ASA, phone them, stay on hold for a while, lodge my complaint and then go and have a wank about how great I am for making the world a better place. I don't know how these people can be bothered, personally.

What exactly are they trying to protect people from? THINK OF THE CHILDREN! What exactly will little Timmy or Janey do when they see these two men sharing a kiss in a situation where the NY Deli owner is quite obviously representing this man's wife? Are they going to go out thinking it's okay to kiss strange men who give you extra ham with their secret mayonnaise? Are young boys going to jump at the first man they see next time they go out and start engaging in homoerotic action because of this advert?

NO, of course they fucking aren't! The reaction that 99% of children will have is "hurrrr, gay!" and they'll think nothing more of it. And for the other 1% it might just open their eyes to the fact that homosexuality is, in fact, okay and shouldn't be something we pretend doesn't exist. Who knows.

All I can say is that it's a damn shame that a good advert is being complained about so much because so many people in this country are determined to pretend that gay people don't exist, that there is nothing going on in the world that wasn't strictly prescribed by the Old Testament.

Grow the fuck up and complain about something that actually matters, like I don't know, gun crime, knife crime, inflation, indigestion, the credit crunch, ladies that lunch, recession, depression and Roger Federer.

These people shouldn't be allowed to vote!

What is wrong with people?

Lately I've found myself asking this question with startling regularity: on a basis that has gone far beyond daily, and is fast approaching hourly. I often wonder if it just me, if I am becoming more curmudgeonly (if indeed a 21 year old can be curmudgeonly) and perhaps I am merely a misanthropist. Quite possibly I am, but undoubtedly some of my grievances with my fellow man (and woman) are ones that would annoy some of the saintlier among us. So, in keeping with what this video describes as being a "New Media douchebag"
here are a few things about other people that I simply cannot abide, handily broken up into easy to digest categories (I guess I did learn something from BBC Bitesize all those years ago).



The Preachy

I personally guarantee that if any of your friends partake in regular exercise, be it jogging, going to the gym, or swimming, you will know about it. Not one of your friends or colleagues is regularly exercising without your knowledge. The reason why? Because they've made damn sure that everyone knows how great, healthy and wonderful they are. No one works out in silence or shifts to a healthier diet without making everyone around them feel bad for not doing the same. "Wow, how many calories are in THAT?", "No thanks, I'm watching my intake" and "Is that organic?" are phrases bandied around with little thought for how it makes the fatter, lazier and slobbier among us feel. "I did 20k last night" or "Phew am I tired today, I've been in the gym every night this week" are the icing on the cake of narcissistic self indulgence that someone who doesn't especially care (such as myself) is forced to eat. I watched 4 episodes of Heroes in a row last night, but you don't hear me bragging about it!


Perhaps even more sickening than the Healthy Healthy Calorie Counters (in my experience they don't count their own calories, so much as those of everyone around them) are the So Green That I'm Definitely A Better Person Than You types. Or SGTIDABPTY for short. An annecdote perhaps will best illustrate this point: I know of a place of work where the workers were happily supplied with free bottles of fruit smoothies, and unsurprisingly morale was nice and high and everyone was enjoying the healthiness (and enjoying bragging about it even more) until one killjoy decided that it was environmentally unfriendly to have these smoothies because they came in plastic bottles, despite that fact that the bottles were all being recycled. What exactly this person expects workers to drink from, I don't know. Perhaps some sort of paper bottle, or maybe they should be mulching down a combination of parsnips and carrots to form a highly malleable material that, once placed in a kiln, provides a stylish and practical drinking vessel (the kiln is heated entirely by smugness and disapproval). It seems to me that we've created a brilliant and wonderful modern world full of choice, convenience and technology, yet some people are so intent on tearing that down and creating a better world for the future (if indeed any of their actions make a piddly bit of difference) that they're sacrificing their own happiness and living in a world of self-denial and guilt of near biblical proportions. Fine, if you want to deny yourself modern things, ease, convenience, plastic, electricity, air travel, cars, computers and all the other things that make our lives better then feel free to bugger off and live off the land somewhere else, but please please please stop forcing your self-flagellation on other people who are quite happy with the world as it is and unwilling to make themselves miserable to make the world a better place for future generations. Call me selfish but I'm not having any children so I don't particularly give one.


The downright rude

As a regular traveller of the Northern Line I am perhaps one of the best placed people in the land to write truthfully about how rude people really can be. Nary a journey goes by that I don't find myself exasperatedly wondering "what the hell is wrong with people". Excluding the bad breathed, the leaners, the pole-hoggers, the pit thrusters, the gropers, the sneezers, the besuitcased, the beggars, the buskers, the drunks, the chavs, the ringtone DJs, the farters, the sharters, the unapologetic foot-standers, the hair-in-your-face-ers, the premature stander-uppers, the I'm so self-important that my luggage deserves this seat more than you do-ers, and the teenage mothers, and, oh, there's only me left on the train. Bliss. Except even if I was the only person on a train, standing right at the very end of a carriage with my face pressed firmly against the glass and my testicles squashed neatly between my thighs, someone would still get on the train and yell in a shrill australasian accent "CAN YOU MOVE DOWN PLEASE?!". No, dammit, I cannot move down because there is simply nowhere for me to go. Apparently the rule is that if someone has not entered one of your orifices with one or more of their appendages there is still room to move down inside the carraige.


That's more than enough venting for one post. I shall be updating later in the week and no doubt will be inspired to rage some more by the people I encounter on my travels. Come on, Human Race, do your worst.

Pot Noodle Guinness spoof

A while back I commented on the Guinness ad that I thought was a massive waste of money. If you spend a massive amount of money on crazy grandiose adverts then you're setting yourself up for a serious spoofing (even if the idea was unoriginal like the Guinness one). This effort from Pot Noodle has done away with fictional Argentinian villages (where most Guinness drinkers reside, apparently!) and set it in a more familiar setting for its target market: a council estate! You can bet your trackie bottoms this didn't cost 10 million pounds.



It's a bit early but Happy St.Patrick's day everyone!

The best thing I ever made

I'm a very creative person. I have lots of creative ideas, I spend a lot of time writing, and coming up with creative concepts. However, I have the dexterity and manual skills of a foetus. I cannot create anything with my hands, as my hands are very prone to destroying and breaking things. Recently it was my girlfriend's birthday and I baked her this cake. It's pretty shoddy looking but it tasted nice, and it's the best thing that I ever made with my hands, and I am very proud of it.

Just humour me!

Biggest cocks in advertising

Just a quick one to share these hilarious videos. Enjoy!

Unilever Hypocrisy

This article on Brand Republic outlines the fact that Unilever has been criticised for giving out mixed messages about women and the beauty industry. The YouTube video from the article (included below) is a parody of Unilever adverts spliced together to make a very interesting point. It is without doubt guilty of giving out mixed messages but how in the wrong is it?

Article: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/770806/Unilever-fire-hypocritical-portrayal-women/

YouTube Video:


I'll be the first to admit that this is funny. It's always nice to see people "socking it to" the big brands and picking them up on their hypocrisy and their dodgy dealings. The video makes a very interesting point - Unilever owns both the Lynx (or Axe depending on where you are) and Dove brands and both are giving out very different messages. One is campaigning for 'real beauty' and highlighting the dangers of the superficial beauty industry, whilst the other more or less objectifies women and promises you that a few sprays of a very cheap deodorant will have them stripping off and oiling themselves up quicker than you can say "pffft, like that'll ever happen". I'll let you figure out which is which.

Dove has very famously done very well by striking back at the beauty industry and telling women that they are beautiful however they look and that true beauty comes from within. The real genius is that they still managed to sell beauty products off the back of this. It's like a car advert telling you that driving is overrated and you should probably get the bus anyway. But, somehow it works and it has worked very very well and given the Dove (and in turn Unilever) brand a massive boost and a very clear brand image: one of a caring, benevolent company doing something genuinely different and selfless.

So how does that sit with the Lynx (I'm going to stop saying "or Axe" now because Axe is a stupid name and the idea of summoning women with "the axe effect" has always sounded rather frightening to me) brand? I'm going to try and break down some of the main points and have an argument with myself whilst talking authoritatively about it all. Then I'll try and make my mind up at the end (I'm still not sure where I sit on this one)

• Lynx and Dove are totally separate brands targeting different demographics and as such the messages in their advertising do not have to run parallel and can indeed be quite contradictory of one another.
• But they're owned by the same parent company, and therefore Unilever is endorsing two completely opposite messages about women, and as such should not be preaching about the negative effects of how women are portrayed by the beauty industry when its own adverts feature scantily clad women pole dancing.
• That's a good point, but the adverts aren't made by the same agencies, so perhaps the agencies are ultimately responsible.
• Unilever would have to approve the concepts and its marketing managers would be well aware of what was happening.
• But each brand within Unilever will almost certainly have a different marketing manager
• They should speak to each other a bit more, they need a water cooler!
• That's a stupid point...wait are you writing all this down? You bastard!

So, in conclusion: I need help and so does Unilever. I think that it is unfortunate what has happened and it almost certainly isn't any one person's fault, but perhaps someone somewhere along the line should've pointed out that they were in fact being really contradictory and sending out mixed messages. The two brands are totally separate and they target different audiences so it is entirely understandable that they portray women in different ways: ways that will appeal to their target market. However, I do think that as they fall under the same umbrella that is Unilever they perhaps need to have a rethink and bring the company's thinking more in line or face more criticism.

It's definitely a difficult question, and I think to answer it properly I would need a much greater understanding of parent companies and corporate responsibility, but with the knowledge that I have of advertising, and the opinions that I have as a man on the street, I think that Unilever has done wrong, but unwittingly, and does not deserve to face any ramifications, but it does perhaps need to have a bit of a rethink about where it stands as a whole company, and how its own image is affected by the individual brands that it owns.

Mario creates a buzz

I found myself in Nottingham this weekend, in particular I found myself in Nottingham's Victoria Centre, where I was lucky enough to spend 10 minutes playing Super Mario Galaxy on the Nintendo Wii. The game is to be released on the 16th of November, and let me tell you, it plays like a dream.

The graphics are excellent, the music and sound effects are spot on, but where this game really shines is in the gameplay. The low gravity and exploring small asteroids literally adds a whole new dimension to the classic formula, and the Wii controls felt 100% natural after about 5 seconds. The level I played centred around Mario's bee power-up that lets you take flight and buzz around in stripy overalls. I was planning to ask for this game for Christmas and the sensible adult within me is still thinking this is a good idea, but the child within me who got to play the game is screaming at me to preorder it. I think we all know who wins when a child has a temper tantrum, and I'm not about to send myself to the Naughty Step.

I have criticised Nintendo's advertising on this blog before (I have also praised it) but they are pretty much spot on with their experiential marketing (courtesy of BD NTWK). The booths with people playing games caught everybody's attention and the staff were both enthusiastic and knowledgeable. Everybody wanted a go - Wii owners wanted to try the much anticipated game and vowed to buy it, non-wii owners had a glint of conversion in their eyes, and kids looked on in bemusement as a 21 year old man set the new high-score and reached a level that none of the others had!

My only criticism of the experience that Nintendo had set up is the choice of games: most were good choices, particularly an unreleased Mario game, but I saw one man attempting to play Tiger Woods golf, which hasn't received particularly good reviews and doesn't really show the Wii off at its best. That's my only problem with it, though, and the whole experience on the whole was brilliant, my hat goes off to Nintendo and BD NTWK.

Run Fatboy Run (brought to you by Nike)

Last night I saw the film Run Fatboy Run. Seeing this film came with much anticipation for me having absolutely loved Simon Pegg's previous 2 films, the brilliant Shaun Of The Dead and the even better Hot Fuzz. I was fully expecting this film to follow the trend and be even better than the last. This, sadly, was not the case and the film was nothing more than a bog-standard RomCom with a brilliant cast sadly wasted on tired jokes and a hackneyed plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it: it was entertaining, and reasonably funny in places, but I left the cinema feeling somewhat indifferent.

What made the film a lot less palatable was the product placement, or perhaps I should say brand placement, of Nike.

*A few spoilers may follow, though nothing that would really spoil the film, as the plot was horrendously predictable.*

Firstly, the whole premise of the film is based around the main character Dennis running a marathon. The marathon is sponsored by Nike, with Nike logos emblazoned across the start and finish line banners, and along the entire length of the course. The commentators and news reporters in the film, naturally, mention the sponsors of the marathon many, many times.

I can handle this just fine, in fact it does add a sense of realism to the film that would be taken away by having the supposed marathon not sponsored by any brand (which simply does not happen) or inventing a fictional brand to sponsor it. However the sheer volume of Nike swooshes (the tick logo) to be seen was somewhat over the top.

What made this product placement unbearable, however were the ways in which the shoes had been worked into the plot:

Dennis is presented with a pair of running shoes by his assistant coach prior to the marathon. Cue a close up of Nike running shoes followed by the comment "the man in the shop said they were the best!" Cue cringing from the entire audience.

One of the other marathon runners proposes to his girlfriend at her birthday party. He gives a speech about how he's running the marathon, and how marathon running is normally a solo pursuit, but he would like his girlfriend to become his partner. He hands her a birthday present the size of a shoebox. She opens it and, lo and behold, inside is a pair of Nike trainers! Out of the trainers he pulls a ring box and proposes to her. Cue puking from the entire audience at the most clumsy product placement they've ever seen.

As I said previously, I don't mind the sponsorship of the marathon by Nike. That is product placement that makes sense. I could almost handle the fact that he was given a pair of running shoes and told that they are the best if it wasn't for the close up shot of the clearly Nike shoes. But to have a character propose by giving someone a pair of Nike shoes and pulling the ring out of the shoe is just about the most desperately ridiculous way of working in a product to a film that I have ever seen.

And guess what everyone is wearing when they run the marathon. You guessed it: not only do they wear Nike numbered bibs (which makes sense, and I don't mind) but they were all kitted out from head to toe in Nike gear. This is ludicrous: even if a marathon was sponsored by Nike, people would turn up wearing a whole host of other brands, even a mix of brands (Adidas shorts, Puma shoes, Nike t-shirt, maybe) but in this film EVERY SINGLE RUNNER was kitted out from head to toe in Nike gear, and this was made oh so apparent by the constant close ups of shoes, shorts and anything else with the Nike logo on it.

I'm all for product placement. I think it plays an important role in building up brand retention amongst consumers, and placed subtly it can work wonders. This Nike placement, however, was so constantly and obviously rammed down the audience's throats that it actually made for uncomfortable viewing at times and several audible groans could be heard towards the end of the film. If anything, I think that it will damage Nike's image amongst film goers. If they had stopped with the sponsorship of the marathon I think people could abide it, and would've gone away with Nike in their head without necessarily noticing. Unfortunately the sheer volume and lack of subtlety in this film meant that people went away feeling angry and annoyed with Nike. I heard a few people grumbling about the product placement, and one person angrily (and sarcastically) exclaiming "Yeah! Of course EVERYONE wears NIKE don't they?!" as we exited.

I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend towards more brand placement of this ilk. If it is I certainly will find myself going to the cinema a lot less. In the future I hope that companies just DON'T do it like Nike did.

A glass and a half of awesome

I have a new favourite advert. I have a new favourite advert every few months: I can never settle on just one great piece of work to say is my absolute favourite, it really depends on when you ask me. The same goes for music: I still don't know what my favourite song is after 21 years of life and gigabytes upon gigabytes of albums. Perhaps I'm just indecisive, but I prefer to think that I'm open minded and people keep creating new masterpieces every day, and when I discover them they temporarily take the number 1 spot along with a whole host of others.

To get back to the original point of this post, my new favourite advert is for Dairy Milk and features a gorilla playing the drums along to the classic Phil Collins tracks "In the air tonight".

Here's the ad in question:


I think Fallon have created an instant classic that people will remember for many years with this advert. I think it plays very well on the British love of off-the-wall humour and the simple fact that anything can be made exponentially more entertaining by placing a guy in a gorilla suit into human situations - see The Mighty Boosh and Trigger Happy TV for evidence. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that Bollo the talking gorilla from The Mighty Boosh is also a drummer: this may well be a deliberate link, I'm not sure.

Anyway, the advert is also very attention grabbing, both visually and aurally: the simplicity of the music and the close-up on a gorilla (which isn't obviously a man in a gorilla suit until further into the ad) is very powerful. When I first saw it I missed the opening "a GLASS and a HALF FULL PRODUCTION" which, of course, instantly informs the viewer that this is an advert for dairy milk, with a welcome return of this classic slogan. By missing it I thought that I was watching an advert for an animal abuse charity at first and I was intrigued to see where it was going. Needless to say I absolutely lost it when he (I'm assuming it's a he; I don't know why) started playing the drums. Somehow they've managed to make the gorilla's face gurn perfectly in the same way all drummers (myself included) do, which is a brilliant touch: he really looks like he's feeling the music.

I think one of the main reasons this advert is so good is that it is a refreshing change from the more standard in your face "here's the product, this product is great, did I mention the name of the product? Buy our product, here's the logo, slogan, blah blah blah buy our product!!" school of advertising. It is entertaining, and it mentions the product very briefly. Simple, effective, and I crave a dairy milk every time I see it.

I haven't yet seen any other media from this advertising campaign, but I hope that Fallon have integrated this advert across other platforms - billboards, digital and POS featuring the gorilla would serve as neat reminders of the TV version, get people talking about it and, of course, buying the chocolate bars. I am, in all seriousness, going to buy a big bar of Dairy Milk next time I go to the shop, just to say thanks for this great piece of advertising (honest, that's the real reason, nothing to do with cravings the likes of which have never before been felt by someone who wasn't pregnant).