« When a Munchkin is not just a Munchkin | Main | Enjoy the Thanksgiving weekend. Or don’t. »
Draft FCB, always with the classiest ads
—Posted by Tim Nudd |
|
November 22, 2006 | Permalink |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00d83460ff0569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Draft FCB, always with the classiest ads :
» That Giant Sucking Sound Is Just A Draft from AdPulp
AdFreak calls out Draft/FCB for this ad, which congratulates all the winners from last year's Cannes. Well, awards show entry & congratulatory ads are usually more of a circle jerk, so this might be an improvement. Or not. Draft/FCB... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 24, 2006 10:53:35 AM
» 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 4:24:28 AM
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Where did you find this? It looks fake to me. What ECD would approve it? You guys tend to post a lot of scam/ghost ads, thinking they're real, so this may be one as well. Anyway, this 'ad' has been done before, believe it or not.
Posted by: Starfish | Nov 22, 2006 10:41:35 AM
This ad ran in Creativity.
Posted by: Tim Nudd | Nov 22, 2006 10:55:47 AM
This ad did run. And this is the problem with the whole draft/fcb thing--they are both are terrible creative shops. Mostly made up of rejects from other places. They can talk ROI all they want but if they don't hire some good creative folks--which they won't because they are far too insecure to do so-- their little experiment will be a nightmare. For both them and their clients.
Posted by: mal evans | Nov 22, 2006 12:17:05 PM
I first thought that Howard Draft was the anti-Christ, but then realized that person would have intelligence, taste and some modicum of charm. The person who approved this ad lacks all of the aforementioned qualities.
Posted by: ad_scribe | Nov 22, 2006 12:27:37 PM
Seriously. Is it 1989? Can you smell the liberated decades of Direct Mail long copy in this ad?
I guarantee there was some old ass mofo at Draft who got a hold of an Archive from 4 years ago and was like, "all-visual ads, eh?"
And then he said "EDGY!"
"This is my chance to get back into the game!"
Posted by: Dean | Nov 22, 2006 12:58:42 PM
Just look at the creative people who run this new joke of an agency. All of them are hacks/money whores who wound up working for fcb and draft because neither agency puts a premium on creativity. Both put a premium on kissing clients ass and bullshitting about marketing metrics. I can't fathom how Walmart, after looking at a reel filled with KFC, Coors and SC Johnson spots could hire these folks. And over Ogilvy? Wow. That's the kind of CMO that will be looking for a new job in a year or less.
Posted by: pete shotton | Nov 22, 2006 1:12:12 PM
let's be honest about one thing:
"Maybe direct agencies aren’t that good at creative after all" may be a true statement, but FCB definitely is not that good at creative.
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 22, 2006 1:22:13 PM
I saw this very same execution - headline and all - on a frat party poster in the early 1980s. It's as funny now as it was then... and it ain't funny at all. Jeez, what morons.
Posted by: Flounder | Nov 22, 2006 2:34:59 PM
And to think, this was their chance to be "creative". No client to kill any of the good ideas. You can count on one hand the number of good creative people at this shop. A penguin hand, that is.
Posted by: peter blake | Nov 22, 2006 3:27:30 PM
let's not get too sanctimonious in our criticsm here.
as recent posts have demonstrated, even ads and promotions for venues like the one show have been known to suck. few agencies seem to do great jobs of promoting themselves, opting to let the client-sponsored work do the talking.
i'll go back to the implications of my original comment: fcb sucks — add that to draft's creative credentials, and you're lucky they didn't just run a line in helvetica with their logos.
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 22, 2006 3:45:20 PM
highjive is right. as bad as draftfcb's tv is, their print is godfucking awful. in the ad world these guys ride the shortbus, so when you consider the source, the lion ad isn't so bad. at least it's conceptual. miguided sure. in bad taste sure. badly art directed sure. but it is an idea.
Posted by: stu sutcliffe | Nov 22, 2006 4:08:27 PM
We have empirical data that supports the fact that 99% of Cannes Lion winners will, um, NOT like this ad? Wait a minute. Get the damn analytics department on the phone! NOW!
Posted by: Howard Draft | Nov 22, 2006 4:15:21 PM
Tim, I think you pretty hit the nail on the head with this one.
Posted by: jono | Nov 23, 2006 12:25:33 AM
Maybe this ad was design by a junior how got lucky for the first time the night before.
Posted by: François Berthiaume | Nov 23, 2006 9:46:26 AM
Veronica, der Lenz ist da!
Kamera:
Dieses mal: profil, bitte.
ca. 1981 photojournalist in Stern Zeitshriften, wenn ich mich richtig erinnere.
Posted by: credit due | Nov 23, 2006 1:25:44 PM
Sadly, according to "reliable sources" this ad was created by the global ECD and the head creative of the Chicago operation. How proud they must be! Howard Draft's attempt to be clever with his comment was as flatfooted as the rest of this operation. But as they say, "the fish smells from the head." After seeing this ad it became even clearer why Wal Mart chose Draft/FCB: They're the cheapest - in every sense of the word... This ad is stupid, hardly original and clearly not in the least bit creative. These people deserve their status at the bottom of the barrel.
Posted by: BEL | Nov 23, 2006 3:17:03 PM
Howard Daft.
Posted by: ipger | Nov 23, 2006 3:53:44 PM
Talk about the dregs of the earth. What were this people thinking - or not? Isn't there anyone at that shop with ANY taste? That ad is hackneyed, tiresome and insults the intelligence of anyone leafing through the pages of Creativity. Fairfax Cone must be spinning in his grave!
Posted by: Annie | Nov 23, 2006 6:24:00 PM
From what I hear the global ecd is also involved with the Boeing work which is just dreadful. Folks, this shop is going to provide a lot of entertainment for us over the next few years. Just be sure to short any Wal-Mart stock you may have.
Posted by: Truth in Advertising | Nov 23, 2006 9:32:38 PM
There were 100 different ways they could've promoted the message, but it's pretty much the first thought that came (excuse the pun) to someone when they were in the bathroom holding their 2 incher. Funny thing is, the guys at Draft probably think it's really edgy. I feel bad for people who work there.
Posted by: April | Nov 24, 2006 8:42:19 AM
There hasn't been a agency this bad since the one Tom Hanks worked for in "Nothing in Common."
Posted by: Truth in Advertising | Nov 24, 2006 9:39:54 AM
This easily explains why Diet Coke fired D/FCB claiming they were looking for another kind of creative....Gee, wonder how SC Johnson, "a family company," feels about this approach to advertising....
Posted by: LAM | Nov 24, 2006 11:24:45 AM
honestly, LAM, most sc johnson ads are far more offensive and concept-free than this cannes message.
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 24, 2006 12:10:14 PM
The simple fact is, Draft/FCB is not a creative agency. When they try to be creative this is what happens. They should stick to the mediocre, formula work they are know for. That's what attracts client like KFC, Coors and the rest of them who also don't care about creative.
Posted by: Bluto | Nov 24, 2006 12:12:19 PM
Too bad, because I remember back to the late 80's when the SF office of FCB was the "gold-standard" of the business - it was the Crispin Porter of its day....what happened????
Posted by: LAM | Nov 24, 2006 12:25:56 PM
Tim
As I have posted repeatedly on AdScam, anything within ten miles of Draft sucks, so the "LionFuckingAd" doesn't surprise me. What does though is the surprising number of posters who think WalMart will not like the output of Draft/FCB and will soon be looking for another agency... C'mon guys, we're talking Wal-Mart here, their taste and appreciation of "Creative" advertising is fucking zero. Jonathon Harries, Draft Global CD has gone on record as saying they got the business because the offered the best ROI... In other words, they were the cheapest. It's a fucking, "we will never be knowingly undersold" match made in heaven. Wal-Mart doesn't give a rats ass about the quality of the work, and Draft is incapable of producing it. They'll be together for years... But Wal-Mart will always be the one on top!
Cheers/George
Posted by: George Parker | Nov 24, 2006 1:08:31 PM
What happened to FCB was that their ECD died of cancer--and was then replaced by a hack by the name of Geoff Thompson. Thompson started to erode the quality of the work and hired Harries--the current ECD--who only cares about his title and his paycheck.
Posted by: madhatter | Nov 24, 2006 1:44:50 PM
Call me racy, but the next door neighbor cows used to do this this type of thing right in front of me when I lived in Nowhere, Tennessee. I even watched, perhaps voyeuristlically or maybe educationally, as the female was hardly moved.
Later, the calves were so darn cute anyway!
Posted by: nancy | Nov 24, 2006 1:54:30 PM
This is quite a peculiar thread — a veritable DraftFCB hate-fest. Why all the outrage? We’ve already established the low standards of this shop. Continuing the rants is like critiquing the street cred of K-Fed.
Who cares if the ad ran in Creativity? Can anyone name a single great ad that ran in that publication? Can anyone display a single great ad that saluted ad show winners? This Cannes ad was allegedly created by DraftFCB’s Chicago office. Can any Chicagoans argue the advertising and promotion for the recent local ad show was any better than this shit?
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 24, 2006 2:11:38 PM
The stuff for the local ad show was done by JWT--another one of the really bad Chicago shops. Boy, there sure are a lot of dumb agencies in Chicago.
Posted by: madhatter | Nov 24, 2006 3:22:51 PM
I also have to take issue with this ad.
Sometimes it's good not to be on top.
Let's say I've had too many Jim Beams on the rocks, then...well, you get the idea.
Posted by: rich Siegel | Nov 24, 2006 4:56:04 PM
There was a good award show ad that ran in Creativity. Can't remember the agency, though.
It was a shot of a guy's back, shirtless. He is sitting on the examining table in a doctor's office. There are a bunch of red hand prints on his back skin, implying he had been slapped on the back too much. The line was something similar to "congratulations to all the winners."
Posted by: Yeppers | Nov 24, 2006 5:12:36 PM
Tim: Yeah, the ad is all that and more, but you can't damn ALL direct shops because of Draft and more than you can damn all general agencies because of Grey.
The Rest of You: You keep forgetting something: Grey is one of the most successful shops out there. No matter how much we all like to pretend it isn't, to ignore its presence, they make a f**k-load of money. And their clients don't care about the quality of creative. Wal-Mart will be thrilled with TV commercials that can be produced for $50K a pop. Doesn't really matter what's in them.
And if K&B (or similar) did this ad 15 years ago, you'd all be drooling over yourselves saying how brilliant and ballsy it was.
Posted by: Rashi | Nov 24, 2006 10:00:24 PM
(I realize we're talking FCB/Draft, not Grey, but the point was you don't have to do even mediocre creative to be successful.)
Posted by: Rashi | Nov 24, 2006 10:01:29 PM
Oh come on, Grey would NEVER do anything as tasteless as that stupid ad. One thing about Grey is that they're smart and they know how to retain clients...which is something that could never be said about D/FCB. The place is populated by some of the most inadequate people in the business. Remember it was Draft - before it swallowed up FCB - that managed to lose Bank of America and Burger King. Hanging on to clients isn't one of their strengths. That, along with the mediocrity of FCB, creates a synergy that should - as someone previously said - provide us with hours of future amusement. Nothing like having a bunch of substandard, tacky thugs trying to sell something...oh yeah, there's a concept.
Posted by: LAM | Nov 25, 2006 2:23:29 AM
LAM,
your argument feels like saying k-fed is cooler than vanilla ice. grey has certainly retained clients by providing some awful work over the years. they're hardly above assuming the lioness' position, to reference the original topic of this thread.
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 25, 2006 11:26:14 AM
Rashi,
And your point is? Of course there's always a place for mediocre agencies out there. There are plenty of mediocre clients who need them and want them. The kind of client who is willing to overspend media-wise to make sure their anemic creative message is heard. I think what everyone is saying on this post is that Draft/FCB could be one of the worst ever. Certainly the dumbshit Cannes ad they ran is evidence of that.
Posted by: madhatter | Nov 25, 2006 11:33:56 AM
Hatter: Unfortunately the vast majority of your fellow posters don't seem aware of your fairly obvious point. And I'm sorry, I don't hear most of them saying that Draft could be one of the "worst ever."
Posters seem shocked that agencies who don't care about creative are able to make money and that clients actually pay them.
I'm not that familiar with the world of DM, but Howard Draft can't be all that bad or all that dumb to have made the fortune he has and to have grown his shop that quickly.
We may not like that fact, but he's doing something right, if your criteria is just making money.
Posted by: Rashi | Nov 25, 2006 10:07:13 PM
What I believe many of us have been commenting on is simply the lack of creative talent exhibited by this ad and, moreover, the extraordinary lack of taste and, to that end, the ultimate absence of respect for the intelligence of the consumer. In this case, "the consumer" is presumably someone with a professional interest in the Cannes event. With this ad as an example, perhaps some of the talents and practices employed to amass profits/personal wealth in the direct marketing arena are not in keeping with those ultimately required to evoke a positive consumer response on behalf of a client. Simply put, if this ad is a demonstration of attempting to "evoke a positive consumer response" Draft/FCB has failed miserably - on all fronts!
Posted by: LAM | Nov 26, 2006 12:17:24 AM
You know LAM, to some people, the fact that there are 40 comments on this ad would indicate that it was very effective in reaching its target. You might not respond favorablly, but you responded. Which is more than you can say for any of the other ads that agencies ran in Creativity
Posted by: Commodore JW Thompson | Nov 26, 2006 12:35:07 AM
Gee, we’ve heard from the JWT Commodore and Grey fans. Who’s next? Ron Popeil? Larry Tate?
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 26, 2006 1:38:56 AM
Well, I just checked and "the JWT Commodore," won 35 Lions this year at Cannes and the Draft/FCB ECD wouldn't know a Cannes Lion if it bit him in the ass....
Posted by: LAM | Nov 26, 2006 2:30:00 AM
Commodore, the "some people" who think 40 vitriolic responses from the very audience this ad is supposed to impress would be idiots who don't understand the most basic principles of advertising - one of which is don't piss off your audience.
As for Wal-Mart's possible reaction, it's more an issue of how the "watchdog" groups who haunt that company might react. Put this in front of those folks, and you can bet they'll be telling Wal-Mart to dump their new agency. Not exactly the way any shop wants to begin a new relationship. (Has anyone sent this link to Wal-Mart Watch or the American Family Association?)
Finally, Tom O'Keefe shouldn't walk away from this unscathed. He's the Chicago office ECD.
Posted by: theo kie | Nov 26, 2006 9:16:18 AM
Nor should Jonathan Harries who has been dragging down the agency's creative product for years. With this ad, they've just taken it to new lows. Stay tuned: now with Howard Draft in the mix, it can only get worse.
Posted by: | Nov 26, 2006 10:39:07 AM
So a bunch of you worked at FCB/Chicago or Draft and you're bitter about the place and the success of people who seemingly don't deserve it.
And you're taking it out on some little ad that ran in Creativity, whose USP is that you'll get laid more often with a Cannes Lion.
Wonder if you'd hate it so much if someone else had done it?
Or why so many people are spending so much time talking about it.
Posted by: Theodore Bates | Nov 26, 2006 2:38:15 PM
I would hate this ad no matter who did it. And the plain fact is, only a shitty agency would create an ad this bad. O'Keefe and Harries are two patently mediocre talents. One bullshits people with his accent and quasi-philosophical blatherings and the other is supposedly an expert on humor in advertising. That expertise is on display in the horrific KFC work that we're subejcted to on a daily basis.
Posted by: | Nov 26, 2006 3:09:58 PM
OK, reviewing the issue of Creativity featuring the Draft FCB ad:
DDB presented a dreadfully dull ad saluting its own wins. Looks like it was created by account people.
BBDO put the Lion logo in the head of a Guinness. An intern-level concept at best.
Ogilvy’s ad is incomprehensible. And it looks like a direct response ad.
McCann Erickson didn’t even try with its ad.
Leo Burnett clearly gave the assignment to junior staffers.
McKinney’s ad looks like a misprint. But it’s actually a self-absorbed piece of shit.
Element 79’s headline reads, “curiosity: bad for the cat, good for the lion.” Bad headline. Good for nothing.
Avrett Free Ginsberg presented the same idea as Leo Burnett. Except their execution is worse.
Wunderman (another Direct shop) may have the best ad in the bunch.
USA Today’s ad is self-promotional garbage, complete with contact information to call their sales rep.
What’s the point? Nobody produced an award-winning ad for this award show. Everyone on this thread is taking the opportunity to dump on Draft FCB (Hey, they deserve it), but based on the field of work, their effort is no worse than anyone else’s — and in some cases, it’s better. The apocalypse is indeed upon us.
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 26, 2006 4:45:44 PM
Time was when some of the best ads of the year were done by agencies for themselves. HighJive's listing of this work is a sad statement about the agency world.
Regarding Ted Bates' comments, I wouldn't be commenting if the ad were merely bad. My issue is the complete lack of awareness on Draft/FCB's part when it comes publishing something so completely tasteless and, to be honest, sexist.
Any ECD thinking this ad should represent their agency (and, by association, clients) deserves to be smacked upside the head. Of course, the hardest smack should be coming from inside the agency.
Posted by: theo kie | Nov 26, 2006 5:50:56 PM
HighJive---
At least some of those agencies you mentioned do produce good work now and then. I defy you to look at the output of Draft/FCB and find anything good--print or tv. The Cannes ad is merely a period at the end of a very long sentence comprised of one bad ad after another.
Posted by: madhatter | Nov 26, 2006 6:24:32 PM
theo kie,
You make a lot of valid points. But when has our industry ever demonstrated sensitivity to any audience?
Harries was interviewed by local Chicago trade journals and Adweek when the merger first happened. Can’t remember why (or for which journal — although it may have been Adweek), but he presented an anecdote about a “friend” who wasn’t very physically attractive, yet always managed to score with the ladies. The remarks seemed somewhat sexist, and certainly inane. It is in keeping with the Cannes effort.
Not sure what the point is. But to call out Draft FCB for crimes committed regularly in the business (remember Neil French?) seems misguided. The Art Directors Club of New York created entry materials in the past year or two playing off the notion of “Pimp my Brand” — and it was nothing short of stereotypical and arguably racist. This year’s Chicago Ad Club award show was a pretty sexist (and pathetic) affair, featuring a lecherous host accompanied by large-breasted bimbos.
It’s correct to recognize the wrongness of these types of incidents. But it’s disturbing that people on this thread are more focused on ripping Draft FCB and its staff versus the global industry issues.
Posted by: HighJive | Nov 26, 2006 6:26:06 PM
