The rantings, ravings and shiv-based philosophy of a jaded-yet-bedazzled writer. Also, a vomiting of thoughts on advertising, media, politics, religion, monkeys, pop culture and — wait for it — more.
Finally found something worth breaking my two-month-long silence for: This campaign for Dunkin Donuts from Hill Holiday. Featuring famed OU and Dallas Cowboys football coach Barry Switzer, these spots follow Coach Switzer as he attempts to instill the fighting spirit of football into other sports. Honestly, they don’t make a lot of sense from a traditional branding perspective. But they’re hilarious (if you’re into that sort of “Arrested Development” or “Rushmore” aesthetic). Which makes me love Dunkin Donuts all the more. Which is kind of the point of advertising. Chew on that, literalists.
Be sure to watch the entire campaign, collected below for your amusement and edification:
This commercial was produced by a couple of guys named (maybe) Rhett and Link. The duo claim to make “Custom-built, Micro-Budget Commercials for MicroBilt Customers.”
I think that’s all the introduction this spot needs.
You can’t turn on the idjit box lately without hearing about the encroaching evil of the swine flu. Sorry, but I’m having a little difficultly throwing the freak-out switch over an illness that’s easily treated and more easily barbecued. Mmm, pulled virus on bun with fries.
Besides, this thing isn’t new. Take a look at these swine flu PSAs from 1976. If them bastage pigs couldn’t stop our bicentennial, I don’t think they’ll stop us now. Oh, wait.
Best line: “But Dotty had a heart condition and she died.” The voice over just cracks me up. Besides, we all know Dotty faked her death to avoid gambling debts.
Thanks to my fellow writer Daniel Beaudoing for the heads up.
Well, it’s time for another video project about the Fox family. While this one does include the twins, it does not focus solely on them. Shocking, I know.
At the risk of making this an all-Crispin-all-the-time blog, I just can’t let this latest Burger King ad slip by. (If being fodder for every other ad blog out there counts as “slipping by,” that is.)
The spot is for Burger King’s SpongeBob SquarePants kids’ meal. Of course, when I think BK, SpongeBob and kids, my mind instantly goes to the wholesome strains of Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back.”
What? Yours doesn’t? Maybe that’s why you aren’t working at the brilliance factory known as CP+B. Don’t ask why I’m not, but it involves glycerin, squirrels and a Zippo.
Anyway, I can’t figure out if this ad is supposed to be targeted to parents or kids, but I don’t think it matters – it misses both. Because let’s be honest, the phrase “booty is booty” should never be uttered in a spot for a kids’ product that doesn’t involve pirates. And even then, it’s suspect.
Today is, if you haven’t guessed by the title and date, Easter Sunday. It has become an AdHole tradition of sorts to post an Easter-related blog this time of year, although I’ve never done so on Easter itself. (I can sense your excitement.) These posts have been both serious and decidedly less so. Although I’m sure some people place great import on their Peeps.
For those of us who identify ourselves as believers, today is a celebration of the defining event of our faith. After all, the cross means nothing without the empty tomb. And while it continues to be less and less popular to put one’s faith in a supposedly unseen God, I’ve never been one to court popularity. As anyone who knew me in high school can confirm. But I would rather put my hope in Jesus than Christopher Hitchens.
For those wondering what all the fuss is about, I suggest picking up something by C. S. Lewis. Perhaps The Screwtape Letters or Mere Christianity. Or if you want something a little more contemporary, check out the The Case for… series by Lee Strobel or Letters from a Skeptic by Gregory Boyd. Just remember, nothing will ever sway a closed mind or heart.
Today I really feel like pausing for a moment to be beat the bejeepers out of a comatose horse.
Last week, Microsoft—and by extension its advertising agency, Crispin Porter + Bogusky—launched the first spot in what is assumed to be a campaign (if the website is to be believed) entitled "Laptop Hunters." This first spot, seen below, features a woman named Lauren who, we are told, is on the hunt for a laptop with "speed, a comfortable keyboard, and a 17-inch screen" priced under $1,000. If she can find one, she’s told she can have it.
Lauren starts the spot inside a Best Buy perusing Windows-based laptops, but is then magically transported by the power of editing to an Apple store. During her quick, unseen walk-through, she discovers Apple only sells one laptop under $1,000 and it only has a 13-inch screen. That would be the base MacBook you can find here.
So it’s back to Best Buy, where Lauren finds her dream PC in the form of an HP for the low-low supervalue price of $699. The production company ponies up the cash and Ms. Lauren is a happy camper.
The end.
This spot has already sparked countless (well, at least I’m not counting them) flame wars on Mac and PC forums throughout the land. The Mac folks mainly argue that:
I’m personally less concerned about the veracity of the spot than its overall effectiveness. I think at best, the spot is clever yet ultimately ineffective, and at worst, it actually enhances Apple’s brand.
For a real-person spot, this commercial is produced fairly well. And by "well," I mean it tiptoes around certain issues in such a way as to show the advertised product in a more favorable light than it might have otherwise attained.
Take Lauren, for example. She’s presented as someone off the street who has $1,000 to spend on a laptop. At least that’s what one thinks upon first viewing the ad. But the ad never claims that Lauren is some random yokel picked out at random down at the In-N-Out. She’s an actress who answered an ad in Craigslist about a research project. She claims she didn’t know it was for a commercial when she responded. But really, who cares? Not me. It’s a commercial. I assume people are actors unless I’m specifically told otherwise. Heck, I worked on Wal-Mart’s "Real People" campaign for a few years, and we actually did have to use real Wal-Mart shoppers with no connections to SAG or whatnot. And you know what? Most people we asked thought those spots were staged. What’s clever, though, is that the ad never says she’s a real—meaning non-actor—person. The VO sort of implies it, sure, but this isn’t a Geico spot. As usual, it helps to pay attention when someone’s reaching for your wallet.
Additionally, Lauren’s requirements for her new laptop and rather vague: "speed, a comfortable keyboard, and a 17-inch screen." Not exactly a real tech enthusiast from the sound of it. My guess is, she wants to surf the web, use Word, and watch DVDs on a decent-sized screen. Fair enough. But that’s not the purpose of the 17-inch MacBook Pro. It’s really geared to professionals in the creative industries. Film editors. Sound mixers. Designers and art directors. Do other people buy this machine? Sure. Maybe even a few who just want a huge firkin’ screen on their Mac laptop. But that’s not the computer’s target.
Nonetheless, Lauren finds her laptop. She doesn’t talk about it much, though, so we don’t really know how good it is without digging around online. But the impression is that her machine is just as sweet and a MacBook. Or even sweeter, since the screen is bigger and it’s 30% less.
On the whole, this ad at first comes off as smart. It makes the point that you can get a pseudo-equivalent (spec-wise) PC for a lot freakin’ less than a Mac. But this raises the question: just who is this ad targeting?
If we’re to believe Lauren, it’s people who just aren’t "cool enough to be a Mac person." Really? Is that who you’re going after? Folks who would buy a Mac if they were cool enough, rich enough and—doggone it—people envied them? Interesting. In this spot, Lauren heads to an Apple store where she would theoretically have bought a MacBook had she been able to find one that matched her specs and budget.
So, PCs are for people on a tight budget? Okay, that’s a seemingly decent ploy given the current economic conditions. But have the majority of Mac buyers ever been that price sensitive? Obviously not, or they would have opted for a PC. I personally didn’t enjoy paying what I did for my MacBook Pro a couple of years ago. But I’d rather pay that premium every few years than switch. Because a computer is more than a bunch of chips and solder. It’s an experience. If you like the Windows experience for whatever reason, rock on. I don’t. So I go with Mac.
People on both sides of the OS aisle talk about the Apple tax to varying degrees. Some ridicule it, some claim it doesn’t exist, and others justify it by pointing to the Mac’s design, hardware-software integration, and whatnot. But it’s simpler than that:
Apple charges what it charges because it can. And even though the company is run by a bunch of hippies, I still say that’s pretty darned American of it.
The rumor mill suggests subsequent spots will focus on higher-end models. Well, have at it. It’s just kind of hard to fan the flames of a price war when the other side refuses to enter the fray.
Besides, what the heck is Microsoft doing pimping other manufacturers’ hardware instead of touting the benefits of Vista? Oh, right. Never mind.
There are two campaigns for which I could write for the rest of my life and be a happy, happy copyslog. The first is ESPN’s “This is SportsCenter” campaign that I believe began just after Uncle Miltie retired. Or 1994. One of those. The second is Jack in the Box’s “Jack” campaign that is only a year younger.
Jack’s latest escapade involves a not-so-subtle shot across the creepy brow of The King. As in, Burger King. Because it seems BK’s promise of “have it your way” comes with a few time-sensitive strings attached.
Since BK is still repped by Crispin Porter + Bogusky, I can only pray that an advertising holy war is about to ensue. Your move, Alex.
One of my favorite campaigns of all time was a long-running series of television ads for Holiday Inn that featured a 30-something loser named Mark who lived with his parents and grandmother. Instead of getting a job, he kept trying to get perks, rewards and whatnot that prompted one of his cohabitants to query, “What do you think this is, a Holiday Inn?”
It was a true one-joke campaign. And – thanks to writing, production and acting that kept things fresh – it worked brilliantly. Sure, you always knew how the spot would end it, but getting there was all the fun.
Here’s a sample for those without a keen memory for ad randomness:
You don’t see a lot of campaigns like this. People talk about an idea having legs – the ability to keep going for several executions, months, years, whatever. And that usually means the campaign evolves over time. And, usually, that each spot has a slightly different message. Maybe a different feature. Or, if it’s the same feature, a different setup each time.
But to basically have the exact same shtick with the exact same beats every time? P’shaw! In fact, I can only think of three campaigns since that have tried this tactic. And the only one to come close to reaching Holiday Inn’s level of sublimity? AT&T’s current campaign for their FamilyTalk plan with Rollover.
I’ve been waiting several months to review this campaign for one reason: To see if they – like Holiday Inn before them – could keep it up. When I first saw the campaign, I immediately thought, “Why haven’t they done this before?” The unused-minutes-as-a-physical-object ploy seems obvious. But then, so do a lot of great ideas in retrospect.
This campaign uses the exact same setup and payoff every time. The exasperated mother catches one of her sons or husband getting rid of their unused AT&T wireless minutes. The guilty party protests that the minutes are old, some even several months old. Mom explains their still good. The kid (or dad) still doesn’t quite seem to grasp it.
The spots are written with just the right amount of bite and dexterous wordplay to keep them interesting. And the casting is great. But why read about them when you can watch?
Despite my mad Google skills, I was unable to find credits for this campaign. So if you have them, pass them along, please.
And I hope Mark is enjoying these from the comfort of his Holiday Inn bed.
Later,
Fox
Update:
Thanks to Roy Elvove at BBDO, I now have the full credits for the “Milky Minutes” spot above:
Agency: BBDO New York, BBDO Atlanta
Chief Creative Officers: David Lubars, Bill Bruce
Exec. Creative Director: Susan Credle
Creative Directors: Darren Wright, Dave Skinner
Copywriters: Peter Alsante
Art Directors: Tony Bennett, Carlo Barreto
Sr. Producer: Julie Andariese
Production Company Moxie Pictures
Director: Frank Todaro
Director of Photography: Mott Hupfel
Post Production: Cosmo Street
Editor: Jason MacDonald
FX/SFX Company: Bryce Edwards / Spontaneous
I am nothing if not on the cutting, nay, bleeding edge of all things pop culture and advertising related. (The previous sentence was foreshadowing, by the way.) Which is why I’m now giving you a review of a book that was published in August 2008. (See how that foreshadowing worked? Sweet.)
The book in question is “The Happy Soul Industry” by Steffan Postaer. Fellow ad geeks will recognize Steffan as the current Chairman and Chief Creative Officer at Euro RSCG in Chicago, the man behind Altoids’ “The Curiously Strong Mint” campaign during his tenure at Leo Burnett, and the scion of ad legend Larry Postaer from RPA. He’s also commented on this blog a time or two. So, THSI comes with quite a pedigree, assuming it’s about advertising.
Which it is not. At least not in the way you think.
You see, THSI is a novel. It says so right on the cover. It’s a story. A narrative. A work of fiction. And while the cynics among us might argue that advertising is nothing but works of fiction, this particular work of fiction does not pretend to give nascent copywriters or designers insight into how to craft a respectable ad.
Instead, THSI is the tale of how the greatest client of all – God – decides that the only way to attract people back to the flock is to, you guessed it, advertise. Seems the Bible has become a bit long in the tooth given all the shiny accoutrements of modern life, and the Lord needs a little more sizzle to convince folks that being good is pretty great.
To execute this new marketing direction, God sends an angel, David (not that David), to Los Angeles to hire the hottest ad shop in the land. And since this is a novel, said agency does not have the name “Crispin” in it anywhere. But I digress.
The main storyline follows David as he meets with agency folks, falls for a new biz shark from a rival, NYC agency and generally mucks up the Lord’s plans. Side stories involve a sleaztacular account guy and a CD with a penchant for recreational pharmacology.
All in all, it’s a brisk, enjoyable read populated by some interesting characters who could pass for real people – angelic overtones excluded, of course. The advertising bits are, as you would expect, spot on. And the overall theme of marketing God, morality and goodness is a pretty nifty idea for a book, even if certain churches and whole denominations have been advertising for years.
I have only two real quibbles with the book. First, the ending. I’ll try not to spoil it here. Nor will I claim that it spoils the story. But it is a bit weak. The book feels like the prose version of a screenplay. Which is not surprising given the author’s own admission that his people are shopping the film rights to Hollywood people and that he’s already written the script. That film-like structure isn’t the problem, though. It’s that at the end, the protagonist, David, is a weak hero who ultimately doesn’t get himself out of the jam he’s created. Maybe, as someone who’s also studied screenwriting (Anyone want to buy a spec script for spiritual thriller? Call me.), I’m just more attuned to the structure of classic storytelling, but I think the ending leaves the reader wanting a bit more.
My second issue with the book is how it represents the underlying concepts of God, the universe and everything. Though based on the basic fundamentals of Christian theology – there’s a God in heaven, an afterlife, angels, etc. – the book then turns those ideas on their collective head. God is a woman. God is only the god of our universe and answers to a committee (worst clients ever, I’m sure). Jesus is not who he claimed to be. Yadda yadda.
Now, I don’t know what the author’s personal religious beliefs are. Although I assume that if he wants the Cubs to win the World Series some day that he must have some sort of prayer life. (I’m here all week, try the veal.) And these deviations from standard dogma aren’t particularly shocking. In fact, they’re quite tame compared to, say, the movie “Dogma.” The problem is that it’s distracting and unnecessary. For people, myself included, who attempt to adhere to the tenets of the Bible, it’s just, well, a little irritating. It seemed to be change for the sake of change. I wasn’t particularly offended. I just didn’t see the point.
In the end, I’m recommending this book. And not just because the author could get me blackballed from the industry. (Ha ha! Too late!) While I don’t think it’s quite as deep as perhaps the author hoped – although the user-centric blog at the official website got pretty heavy pretty quickly – it does do a good job of being fun and thought provoking at the same time.
Besides, couldn’t you use a nice little aperitif before “Mad Men” returns?
