Draft calls Cannes ad ‘a terrible mistake’
—Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
November 29, 2006 | Permalink |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00d8342bb59a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Draft calls Cannes ad ‘a terrible mistake’ :
» Draft won\'t say who screwed up the lion-ad from adland
In a pretty classic move, Draft washes their hands off the lion ad that caused such a ruckus. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 4, 2006 4:11:54 AM
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"It's good to be on top" with a male lion literally fucking a female lion (who actually looks fairly bored with his performance) is a nice metaphor for the men in leadership at D/FCB....but, alas, it clearly is in bad taste and not worthy of the rest of the ad community... Yes, surely Harries has the goat pictures because he's otherwise completely unemployable... Their largest account is SC Johnson, you know, "A Family Company." Go figure....
Posted by: GG in Chicago... | Nov 30, 2006 8:04:55 PM
Let the metaphor run deep. These are old sources. But you know what they say about age and wisdom sometimes.
Ladies who are perturbed by this. Please have patience.
The female chooses the male, not vice versa. (Trivers, 1972) Female choice is still the controlling factor in reproductive strategy.
Female behavior is not for the convenience of the male. On the contrary, males must adapt their reproductive strategies to female behavior. (Daly, 1983)
Read up on this. the female lion is allowed to swat a paw if she's not interested. And that's what nature has allowed. Don't assign boredom.
wait, watch, and choose...
Unless, of course, they start awarding seahorses. And that is a totally different award.
Posted by: | Nov 30, 2006 8:39:56 PM
Then, the issue comes to Whalemart.
I'm no marine biologists, but if they mate anything like dolphins, that's a belly to belly, bottle nose to bottle nose encounter.
Posted by: | Nov 30, 2006 9:11:02 PM
As one who is not in the "industry" I must ask: is everyone so snotty as the posts here seem to indicate? I mean, how could a C-tier ad agency get the Walmart account? And what then is an A-tier agency? One that does "edgy" work for Joe's Pet Store? Seriously, I'm a lawyer and we hate each other, but we respect the good ones who succeed. So, please tell me what makes a "good" ad agency? Does it have to be located in New York? Sounds like the same bullshit when we are lucky enough to go against an Ivy league attorney. Great reputation, but most of them are self important twits. Have a nice day, and may you all be more creative tomorrow.
Posted by: AdVerse | Dec 1, 2006 12:15:08 AM
You know, funny thing is after all of this rambling and debating among us, the creatives who actually created the piece are going to be infamous for producing such a talked about advert. Who knows? They may end up on Oprah! And in the end, they may come out on top afterall. Good luck guys.
Posted by: jono | Dec 1, 2006 4:34:40 AM
AdVerse,
This will admittedly sound theoretical and abstract, nonetheless… Great agencies tend to have a total management dedicated to creating breakthrough work. It’s about believing in processes that allow for inspired creativity and following gut instincts of leaders with great gut instincts. Vision is another big part of it. The other slice of the pie involves finding clients who are willing to buy breakthrough work. The truth is, even the greatest advertising agencies would have difficulty selling breakthrough work to a lousy client (see Draft FCB client roster for examples of lousy clients). A C-tier agency could get the Wal-Mart account because Wal-Mart is a C-tier client (at least from a “breakthrough” perspective — Wal-Mart is a cash cow client, the type of which you undoubtedly have in the law profession too). Location is not a factor. For example, three top agencies include Fallon (Minneapolis), Crispin Porter + Bogusky (Miami) and Weiden + Kennedy (Portland). Yes, our industry’s Madison Avenue mystique may be analogous to your Ivy League status, but the aforementioned shops continue to counter the misperceptions.
jono,
Highly unlikely.
Posted by: Darrin Stevens | Dec 1, 2006 1:02:49 PM
Darrin, you always were an insufferable ass-kisser.
Posted by: Larry Tate | Dec 1, 2006 1:59:19 PM
Adverse, I agree with your observation of the 'snottiness' of these posts. While a lot is filled with undue hubris, the truth is there are indeed C-tier and A-tier agencies.
The A-tier got that way, not by doing pet store ads, but by solving real problems for real blue chip clients in not only an effective way, but a creative way.
As for the C-tier, you ask how they could 'win Walmart'? Well, because there are too many clients who don't really want their branding problems solved. What they want are service-providers who will do exactly what they want, and how they want it, and are willing to pay handsomly for it. There are many agencies willing to do that, and so that makes them C-tier. (As a lawyer, think of C-tiers as Tort law or ambulance chasers).
B-Tier agencies? An agency that's willing to take on both A & C tier clients.
how could a C-tier ad agency get the Walmart account? And what then is an A-tier agency? One that does "edgy" work for Joe's Pet Store? Seriously, I'm a lawyer and we hate each other, but we respect the good ones who succeed. So, please tell me what makes a "good" ad agency? Does it have to be located in New York? Sounds like the same bullshit when we are lucky enough to go against an Ivy league attorney. Great reputation, but most of them are self important twits. Have a nice day, and may you all be more creative tomorrow.
Posted by: AdVerse
Posted by: Seethruthetiers | Dec 1, 2006 2:57:39 PM
Again, there's a reason a tier-C agency is a tier-C agency. D/FCB offered lowest commission, that's why Walmart chose it. Next year, Walmart will buy up D/FCB. That's always been Walmart's strategy.
Posted by: | Dec 1, 2006 3:49:19 PM
I want to see the ad! Is it still around?
Posted by: | Dec 1, 2006 5:01:01 PM
You want to see the deaf leading the blind? Wait till Draft starts working with the braintrust in Bentonville. A former rag merchant for Target, a Chrysler hemi hawker, an instore poster guy, and not a single person with retail marketing among them. Not one. This account used to run like a swiss watch with three people at Wal-mart handling all the dutues of the 150 new people who have been hired. Oh, the three? Booted. Why have anyone around who knows how the account works. The two agencies who could tel them? Booted. Some brilliant minds all around.
Posted by: arkansas bob | Dec 1, 2006 5:34:58 PM
It's going to be bad. At best, the work will be pablum. The pablum will fail and Draft/FCB will lose the business in about a year's time. I hope the opposite happens, but considering the weak creative leadership the place has, well, it's going to be a mess. Word is, in fact, that it already is.
Posted by: harry lime | Dec 1, 2006 5:41:13 PM
Come on Harry et al. You know the old adage- the best way to kill a bad product is with a good ad.
Wal-Mart has problems that no amount of clever advertising can solve. They've spent so much time and effort concentrating on B-School crap like "just in time" inventory, RFID tags and the like that they forgot that people actually had a choice about whether they went into the stores or not. And people aren't going in. Which has everything to do with the kind of merchandise they have, the way the stores are laid out, the overall feel of the place, etc. They're not cheap enough to beat Costco and the like nor are they hip enough to compete with Target for the "just slumming it" crowd.
And you can't fix that with advertising, no matter what your professors at Creative Portfoliio Circus Center told you.
Target's advertising works because when you go into the store, both the merchandise and the store itself live up to the hype. The same way the BK stuff CPB does works because a BK breakfast sandwich is f-ing delicious.
Draft will do a lot of targeted postcards sending 50 cent off coupons for white bread to people who've recently bought toasters. And they'll work because if you've got a new toaster you could probably use some cheap white bread and if it's 50 cents off you really don't care what the type face looks like.
Or if there are two lions copulating on the front of it. You just want your 50 cents off.
Posted by: tangerine toad | Dec 1, 2006 10:51:52 PM
tangerine toad,
you actually were sounding credible until you typed:
"The same way the BK stuff CPB does works because a BK breakfast sandwich is f-ing delicious."
plus, your reasoning behind coupons for white bread sounds pretty, well, white-bread. just because consumers allegedly don't care about typefaces doesn't mean we (as advertising experts) should cease to give a shit.
as you pointed out yourself, target is successful because it lives up to its own hype. wal-mart does too. the problem is, wal-mart's hype sucks.
Posted by: HighJive | Dec 2, 2006 1:29:58 AM
You're misreading me Jive.
I never said WE shouldn't care about typefaces and doing good work. But reality is that a consumer, when faced with a great product - or a great deal- cares little about advertising. My point was merely that Draft will do a lot of that for Wal-Mart- targeted DM to people who are receptive to such offers irregardless of packaging and typeface- and thus will not "fail miserably" no matter how bad the creative is. And that in fact, a good campaign from a good creative agency would help the agency far more than Wal-Mart because no matter how clever the ads were, the store experience would be the same and that doesn't translate into repeat business.
So I think we're pretty much in agreement.
As for BK, if their food really was awful then Crispin's advertising wouldn't work very well. Think about Fallon's work for United. Board any United plane, with its dirty worn-out seats, cranky flight crew and horrible on-time record and those whimsical/emotional ads seem almost comical: what airline could they have been talking about. I think you may have thought I meant that the quality of the food was tied in to the quality of the creative. That's pretty funny. The point, again, was that the ads would not positively effect BK sales if the food itself was awful. You'd get lots of "try-ers" but few "repeaters"
Posted by: tangerine toad | Dec 2, 2006 10:25:04 AM
tangerine toad,
yeah, we probably agree more than not.
the original BK remark was not intended to be taken seriously.
regarding wal-mart and consumer responses to messages, the top half of your position still feels too much like lazy account person thinking — no offense. if our global industry hopes to survive, there needs to be a recognition of the integration of all branding-related efforts. you might think that a sales flyer’s look and feel is irrelevant to consumers, but it’s not. consumers do continue to hold strong preferences for brands, even if it’s on subconscious levels. the truth is, bad design in wal-mart’s case will only reinforce the consumer perception of a bad store experience. it’s true that wal-mart must also create system changes to ultimately succeed. but it’s not out of the question for an agency’s work to help inspire the change.
by the way, i never typed draft fcb will “fail miserably” with their new client. but now that you mention it, they probably will.
time will tell.
Posted by: HighJive | Dec 2, 2006 1:14:21 PM
We're more in agreement than you think Jive.
I am 100% behind your postulate about the long-term effect of bad design and flat messaging. I was just saying that in the short-term Draft will likely focus on can't-miss DM offers (e.g. discount white bread to toaster buyers) and then point to the effectiveness of those offers. The long-term effects of bad branding are hard to quantify: you and I know that this is the way things work, but a number-centric culture such as Wal-Mart is going to be oblivious to such a subjective measurement.
Posted by: tangerine toad | Dec 2, 2006 2:41:10 PM
so much time to comment, so little creative being generated...
Posted by: | Dec 2, 2006 2:43:27 PM
ok - anyone recgonize that the primary job of avertising is to sell and make money? It is great to marry art and commerce and I hope we all can do it with grace and brilliance. But that doesn't keep anyone's lights on. The $1.00 offer keeps the lights on. Money is priority #1 in advertising. The minute you forget that, you are an idiot. It's nice to be an arteest but you work in advertising. Slamming direct response because it makes money is foolish. Go be a starving artist, but do it on your own time.
The DFCB lion ad is shit for a number of reasons. The thing that bothers me about it most is that is was a fucking terrible business decision by the mamagement that approved it (and is responsible for keeping everyone's jobs and avioding angry clients). If DFCB fails, it will not be because they are not creative enough, it will be because they are stupid business managers.
Posted by: the business | Dec 2, 2006 11:21:28 PM
the business,
no one would deny most of your points.
but the most successful among us realize making money and making breakthrough advertising are not mutually exclusive.
when the primary goal is making money, the ultimate result is usually really bad work --- which inevitably leads to the loss of revenue.
Posted by: the art of business | Dec 3, 2006 12:01:22 AM
Because all those brilliant breakthrough spots for Amazon, Starbucks, Microsoft, Toyota and eBay helped make them the wildly successful companies they are today.
Posted by: Arteest | Dec 3, 2006 7:58:11 AM
Arteest,
Not sure what your point is.
The examples you offered only demonstrate the importance of building a brand image — as well as the necessity to deliver on all levels (from experience to operations). Did anyone here imply the responsibility lies solely with an advertising agency? Obviously, it does not. In fact, the inability of advertising agencies to recognize this — and act accordingly — has led to the incredible loss of revenue and jobs. The addiction to 30-second spots has also permitted the Howard Drafts of the world to flourish. It’s ironic that this thread was inspired by an ad for an awards show, yet another fetish that continues to drag down the industry. Imagine if awards were handed out to brands that succeeded without advertising agency intervention. Perhaps the ad image for that show would depict industry honchos getting screwed.
Posted by: HighJive | Dec 3, 2006 1:16:05 PM
It's really simple: It's about the client. Before an agency does anything AT ALL they should ALWAYS weigh how whatever action it is they're considering will be perceived by their respective clients. When you've got the world's largest employer as a client and they have a website and "watch dog" action group that is comprised of some of the more conservative people in our population; coupled with another client who calls themselves, "a family company;" I'd think twice before I ran an ad (which was definitely approved at the top senior management level)depicting a male lion mounting a female lion with a caption that reads, "it's great to be on top."
As a client, I wouldn't want to be represented by an agency that is so clearly lacking in good judgement and, of course, taste. As stated: IT'S ALL ABOUT YOUR CLIENTS and, upon looking at this ad, I'd say that D/FCB seems to have lost sight of that. Instead they've deomonstrated that they're simply not "the sharpest tools in the drawer." Help me out here: I'd want to give this group millions of dollars, why?
Posted by: | Dec 3, 2006 6:45:00 PM
you wouldn't. this is one of the biggest mistakes a client has ever made. draft/fcb is inept. they can talk brand platforms all they want, but the simple fact is, they can't execute for shit. they are to creativity what civil war surgeons were to medicine.
Posted by: ned | Dec 3, 2006 8:47:14 PM
Maybe instead of self-congratulatory ads touting how Draft kicked the ass of its competition, they should remember Wal-Mart's strength is $4.88 plastic things and help them focus on that.
Wal-mart gets away from that message, they die. Oops, too late. Sales already down for November as compared to Target.
The bit above about choice relating to females and their mates is telling. If Wal-Mart keeps trying to be the next Target, their customers will choose to go elsewhere.
$4.88 plastic, nothing more.
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Dec 4, 2006 11:19:51 AM
So, so, SO wrong. It's NOT all about the client. It's ALL about the consumer.
Posted by: Twopostsbefore | Dec 4, 2006 12:25:33 PM
It's funny and in a trade mag no less... that reaches what?? nine people??????
Lighten up. This is soooo typically an uptight mid-west reaction. Chicago doesn't even deserve to play with the Europeans.
Posted by: mediaslut | Dec 4, 2006 3:44:38 PM
Beerman, Who is tasteless???? You think the "Jew" comment is of a higher standard.
Does anyone else have the balls to respond to this display of true tastelessness???????
Posted by: A Jewish Lioness | Dec 4, 2006 4:10:47 PM
He even spelled corny wrong!! What do you expect from an ignorant beerdrinking racist!! He must be in advertising.
Posted by: MAEnglish | Dec 4, 2006 4:16:13 PM
Ohmigod! People are still talking about this?!
And, ohmigod again! I'm still reading it?
Posted by: Simba Mufasa | Dec 4, 2006 4:38:36 PM
I rule
Posted by: rob liefeld | Dec 4, 2006 4:52:06 PM
HighJive: You clearly knew exactly what "Arteeste" was talking about- that most of the successful brands that came on the scene over the past 10 years did so without the help of any sort of noticeable advertising of the traditional :30TV/One Show Print Ad sort.
And you very aptly described just the techniques they used and why this business is self-destructing.
Posted by: Another Arteeste | Dec 4, 2006 8:07:03 PM
Another Arteeste,
What about Apple, Nike, VW, Mini, IBM, BMW, Harley-Davidson and I could go on and on. Great advertising will help any brand it touches. That's not to say brands can't grow without it. But why wouldn't a great brand want great advertising?
Posted by: | Dec 4, 2006 10:38:06 PM
"...most of the successful brands that came on the scene over the past 10 years did so without the help of any sort of noticeable advertising of the traditional :30TV/One Show Print Ad sort." 12/4, 8:07 PM
Of all the silly posts posted here, this one by "Another Arteeste" wins the award for the most incoherent and slovenly thought out. As much as I hate to defend High Jive who seems to specialize in his/her own turgid tergiversations, I will. But not for long as a No Limit Hold Em Freeroll is about to start on Full-Tilt Poker, one of the last holdouts for American on-line poker in the face of puritanical government efforts to prevent consenting adults and minors from having good, clean fun.
Posted by: Tom Messner | Dec 5, 2006 9:26:26 AM
I wonder how differently this ad would be received had it come from Crispin or BBH or Fallon or Goodby.
Posted by: Liam O'Keefe | Dec 5, 2006 1:12:31 PM
But it wouldn't have come from them, that's worth noting.
And - in bizzaro world - if it did, it'd still be a dumb idea.
And I'd expect Adfreak would still have brought it to our attention.
And we'd have had the same allergic reaction.
Posted by: Jonas Grimsby | Dec 5, 2006 1:34:54 PM
>>Of all the silly posts posted here, this one by "Another Arteeste" wins the award for the most incoherent and slovenly thought out.
honestly, messner, yours might have topped another arteeste's.
Posted by: messin with messner | Dec 5, 2006 3:18:25 PM
I would agree, seems like messner has a little too much time on his hands. maybe he should help his old agency improve their mucho mediocre creative product.
Posted by: goober | Dec 5, 2006 4:58:03 PM
Actually today was very productive:
1) Won an Omaha Hi-Lo Limit poker tourney for $270
2) Went into the hospital and was operated on for cataract surgery. That took two hours and got back home to finish a great new book, The Return of the Player by Michael Tolkin...reading the last two chapters with one eye
3) Continued to ponder the use of noms de keyboard (clavier?) to hide real identity on a blog. Is it men's room door scrawlings on blogs that drive anonymity?
4) Now for dinner and to contemplate the spread on the Knicks game tomorrow night...
Posted by: TOM MESSNER | Dec 5, 2006 5:19:31 PM
Tom,
The Return of the Player is fun isn't it? Best of luck recuperating from your surgery. As for the Knicks, best of luck there as well. I, along with my fellow Chicagoans, apologize for Eddie Curry.
Posted by: jim schmidt | Dec 5, 2006 5:31:15 PM
TOM,
we could produce another endless and inane thread pondering the use of noms de keyboard. believe it or not, my feeling is that it allows for the examination of ideas versus individuals. as these draft fcb threads have demonstrated, there's a lot of the latter tainting the former.
that said, hope you have a speedy recovery. and contrary to schmidt's statement, isiah thomas warrants more apologies than curry.
Posted by: HighJive | Dec 5, 2006 6:07:44 PM
I'd rather have eye surgery than watch the Knocks play actually.
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Dec 6, 2006 9:40:29 AM
Sorry for the Knicks typo. See what I mean? I need surgery.
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Dec 6, 2006 9:41:33 AM
Thanks for the good wishes. I now have fake eyes, fake teeth, fake artery openings, a fake leg artery, three pins in my ankle, but have resisted toupees and botoxing.
Notice also how we changed the subject from this hapless ad to the hapless Knicks.
Truth is I find reading this particular blog to be the best trade journalism going on. It could be improved only by carrying over the serif typeface I am now typing in to actual entry when I post it. Sans-serif type causes cataracts, glaucoma, and possibly cancer.
Posted by: TOM MESSNER | Dec 6, 2006 11:08:19 AM
Draftfcb lost the Wal-Mart account. I wonder if it had anything to do with this incident
Posted by: th_other_guy | Dec 7, 2006 3:28:38 PM
I'm not from the US, so not familier with the people in the industry over there. When someone gets a slagging on a blog, if they've got any respect, there's always someone to speak in their defence. But this is the first time I've seen so many irrefuted poisonous comments (or maybe I'm just reading the wrong blogs).
So my question to you all - what have these guys have done to become so universally disliked? As people? As an agency?
Posted by: musaka | Dec 7, 2006 5:50:43 PM
¡¡¡Que mierda de anuncio!!!
Posted by: Maco | Dec 7, 2006 8:37:11 PM
Well, let's just start with the fact that the management of both companies is a back stabbing, lying, cheating, ill-mannered and yet passive agressive bunch (while, of course, pretending to exude basic midwestern core values) and couple that with no talent or taste and you've got a rather grim group on your hands...not a "vendor" clients should be anxious to sign-on. In light of their recent behavior, it's obvious that D/FCB never considered how their actions would affect their clients. And, in turn, how their client's might react to same. Frankly, one could conclude that Howard Draft threw Julie Roehm under the bus. He sold her a bill of goods as to what his firm had to offer (which was rooted in faulty logic and, in fact, is a rather lackluster and dated offering)for what he assumed would be his personal gain and fame....this is the guy who publicly claimed "I've made my money and now I wanted to make history"...well, he got his wish....
Posted by: GG in Chicago | Dec 8, 2006 8:24:06 AM
Hey the-other guy!
Nothing is your answer. The Chicago ad community looooooves to hate itself. Most of the haters have probably done a stint or two at FCB as well as every other agency in town. Chicago hates not being NY or LA and they love to hate and bitch. It's a industry pastimes.
But what they hate than the agencies they meander to and from is not actually being in the film real business, not really writing that novel or painting that canvas.
It's why they run to NY or LA every chance they get. They feel grown up. Playing with the big guys. It's really sad.
Woody Allen classic line in Annie Hall was about those that can't....teach and those that can't teach...teach gym.
Enough said!!!
Posted by: Medaslut | Dec 8, 2006 8:11:55 PM
GG,
You have no clue what your talking about!!!! The back story has less to do with Howard and everything to do with the antics and ethics of one ex Chrysler babe who took Bensonville by storm not to mention the family jewels of one her underlinks. Don't know the story just make shit up!!!!
Posted by: Mediaslut | Dec 8, 2006 8:15:59 PM
