« More madness from Spongmonkeys creator | Main | Hopefully your ideas come a bit more easily »
Let’s let Orville rest in peace
In case you missed this exceedingly creepy Orville Redenbacher spot on the Golden Globes on Monday night, here it is. Yes, this is the one from Crispin Porter + Bogusky in which Orville rises from the dead. I know that in his day—and let’s reiterate, that time has passed—Orville was a somewhat lovable, quirky spokesman. But it’s hard to figure out the point of bringing back a digitized version of him, particularly if he’s likely to induce nightmares. As for the (so-called) plot of the ad, he’s listening to an MP3 player during the whole spot and actually exclaims, “Do you believe this little baby holds 30 gigs?” Good lord. And what’s with the group of ... I guess they’re office workers in the background, who, instead of running screaming from the corporate cafeteria at the sight of a dead man in their midst, only look on quizzically? —Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
January 18, 2007 | Permalink |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00d8347c525a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Let’s let Orville rest in peace :
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I would quote one of our art directors from yesterday... "When was the last time you heard so many people talking about Orville F'in Redenbacher?"
I can't think of a blog that hasn't mentioned it. That's some pretty good buzz, even if it is akin to the sound of flies around a butter-scented corpse.
Posted by: CorruptedJournalist | Jan 18, 2007 11:23:47 AM
From what I hear, Crispin is kind of a cult. (I've actually seen some frightening e-mails from there in which some creative leaders exhort the troops in a very "it's us against the philistine world" manner. Stuff that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Anyway, cults tend to do strange things once in a while. This spot, besides being odd, seems like something Grey or McCann would've have done 20 years ago. I think when you take Crispin out of their comfort zone--males -18-24--they struggle.
Posted by: thumper | Jan 18, 2007 11:28:20 AM
this spot f'in blows. its cripsin whacking off with technology.
Posted by: hmmmmmmm | Jan 18, 2007 12:32:21 PM
The name of Crispin's game is fame. The client's getting it--job well done.
Posted by: kmf | Jan 18, 2007 12:33:10 PM
Corrupted Journalist and kmf are right. The commercial has people talking about Orville Altecocker for the first time in eons.
The only problem is that the buzz has been almost universally negative.
Yeah, I know, guys: details, details.
I mean, so what if people are seriously creeped by the spot? All that matter is that it generates more buzz for Crispin -- oh, excuse me, I meant Orville Redenbacher.
Of course, if it wasn't for the utterly botched resurrection of Orville's dessicated corpse, nobody would be talking about the commercial in the first place. Everything about it, from the writing to the directing, is abysmal. Thumper's comparison of this steaming load to "something Grey or McCann would've done 20 years ago" is far too generous.
But then when has a little thing like reality ever gotten in the way of Crispin's legions of apparachniks?
Posted by: TTFN | Jan 18, 2007 1:06:41 PM
The problem with the "well, they're all talking about it" logic is that it assumes that things like quality, taste, and communication don't really matter in advertising. In that case, Crispin must think ads like "Head On!" and the Aflak duck are genious. Is this really the direction their agency is going?
Agencies should strive to create work that people actually like and talk about. Work that communicates a clear message about the brand. Buzz value is worthless when it's shallow and almost completely negative. Congratulations CPB, you've created an ad that almost everyone hates and everyone talks about hating. If that's your idea of success, good like in the future.
Posted by: buzz=fart | Jan 18, 2007 1:34:07 PM
Orville Redenbacher apply directly to the forehead. Orville Redenbacher apply directly to the forehead. Orville Redenbacher apply directly to the forehead. And then run screaming when you realize you're face to face with a creepy-ass zombie.
Posted by: thatguy | Jan 18, 2007 2:14:20 PM
I predict Crispen will have the best and worst ad of '07.
Posted by: Jackie0 | Jan 18, 2007 2:34:49 PM
The ‘It works because it got attention no matter how it happens’ logic is a cop-out.
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Jan 18, 2007 2:52:13 PM
I don't care how many awards they've won or how much buzz they generate, this is pathetic. This is their jump the shark moment.
Posted by: thumper | Jan 18, 2007 3:02:21 PM
Creepy.
Posted by: AmericaLicksIsraelsArse | Jan 18, 2007 3:15:04 PM
There is only one way to describe this and that is lame. What retro/70's icon will Crispin try to ironically glom onto next? If this is what is considered hip in Miami, I'll gladly be square.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Jan 18, 2007 3:24:07 PM
Everybody talked about the Hindenburg, too.
Also – the CGI work looked wayyyyy fake. The head motions were all wrong. This was Fincher?
Posted by: Duane | Jan 18, 2007 3:28:15 PM
A cop out? Why? What "criteria" of yours does it not meet, makethelogobigger?
The m.o. of Crispin is to get people to talk about their clients. In order for people to talk, it needs to stand out. Which means they have to take risks. Something most agencies and clients aren't willing to do.
But who cares? I bet people will be buying popcorn this month.
Posted by: kmf | Jan 18, 2007 4:26:56 PM
Agencies pitching against Crispin don't need to show their reels in a pitch, they can just show this as a sample of work they may get Crispin.
And yes the spot is getting buzz. which is fine but we are talking about a food product afterall. The thought of Orvilles corpse touching the popcorn makes me want to throw up in my own mouth.
Posted by: jamie | Jan 18, 2007 4:50:45 PM
Who's talking, KMF? Ad people. If that's the M.O. of Crispin, to get ad people talking, then they've succeeded. Show me Joe and Jane Popcorn Consumer who are talking about this - not only talking - but buying Redenbacher 'corn, and you'll have a decent argument.
You're from the "any press is good press" school, right? Everyone knows the name Enron; and that's not a good thing.
Posted by: KMF Wants to Work for Crispin - Or Already Does | Jan 18, 2007 4:52:39 PM
Risk, kmf? What risk?
The only gamble Crispin took with this commercial is that they used technology that obviously hasn't been perfected. Everything else about this spot is insipid, inept and uninspired. Well, unless you consider painfuly unfunny writing, awkward staging, wooden acting and lame doubletakes to somehow be edgy.
What good is having people talk about you if they don't have anything good to say?
Do you honestly believe that the client would be thrilled with the kind of response their commercial has generated thus far? Give me a break.
A bad ad is a bad ad -- whether it's created by Crispin or McCann or Grey.
I know you can't admit that your idols are capable of the occasional misstep, kmf. At least you can wash down your popcorn with the Koolaid you've been drinking.
Posted by: Jim Jones | Jan 18, 2007 4:56:18 PM
Damn, did I get people talking, too? Maybe I should work at Crispin.
I won't dispute that it's a bad ad. I never called it a good one, friends.
My argument, to make it utterly clear for everyone who misconstrued it in the first place, is that Crispin's goal may be different from most, if not all, other agencies. They want to get attention for their clients, first and foremost.
Will they create bad ads? Of course, and this is a case in point. Nevertheless, their goal was achieved--people are talking about Orville Redenbacher (and not just people in advertising).
By the way, I have no desire to work for my idols at CP+B. Miami is a poor man's L.A. (and that's saying something, 'cause L.A. sucks) and Denver gets way too much snow.
Now leave me alone so I can go get a glass of cherry Kool Aid.
Posted by: kmf | Jan 18, 2007 5:10:49 PM
It's genius to sell a Volkswagon the same way one would sell crappy beer, crappy hamburgers and crappy popcorn. Sheer Genius.
Posted by: I'm so hip it hurts. | Jan 18, 2007 6:33:18 PM
Ask yourself, would you like to do ads that shock people with amazement and surprise? Or ads that shock people with horror and disgust? If you're going to go for shock value for the sake of shock value, I'm sure you would shoot for the former over the later. And while your doing that, it might not hurt to think about what you are saying in the process.
This ad itself is an embarrassment for their agency. They can "spin" it anyway they want, but I'm sure that the end result is a disappointment for them and not what they were going for.
Anyway, I don't care how stupid the client is. They're not going to buy into the argument that at least "People are talking" when they start to realize that everyone is saying that they hate the ad and how morbid it is.
Like VW is now realizing, talk is cheap. When consumers can't connect with a brand and see it as a bunch of gimmicks and jokes, they don't choose to buy into it.
Posted by: Shock for Shock | Jan 18, 2007 8:43:09 PM
Perhaps the reason we "misconstrued" your argument, kmf, is that you didn't do a very good job of making your case in the first place.
Your logic is as muddled as your language. You say that "Crispin's goal may be different from most, if not all, other agencies. They want to get attention for their clients, first and foremost."
I don't know where you work, kmf, but that is the goal of most, if not all, agencies on the planet. Some just do it better than others.
Even though you admit the commercial was lousy, you go on to say that the agnecy's "goal was achieved--people are talking about Orville Redenbacher (and not just people in advertising)."
People are talking, alright -- but about how bad the commercial is, not how good the popcorn is. (They even managed to botch the product shot.)
If the client's sales do go up, I suspect it will be because they haven't been doing much advertising in recent years. So anything -- even a commercial as crappy as this one -- is bound to raise their visibility. But at what price?
Instead of advertising that's so bad it's good, wouldn't the client's money be better spent on advertising that's so good it's great? Do you think they spent a small fortune only to have their commercial -- and the memory of their founder -- be universally derided and disdained?
If you can call that a success, there's a job for you in the Bush Administration. (And no, I am not misconstruing your words. You claimed Crispin acheived their goal -- which is the definition of success.)
Sorry to keep picking on you, kmf. But ill-informed attitudes like yours invite abuse. It would be impolite not to accept.
Posted by: Lance Boyle | Jan 18, 2007 10:05:35 PM
Alex, you got some 'splaining to do.
Posted by: WTF | Jan 18, 2007 11:23:27 PM
Lance, Jim Jones, whoever you are--I give up. You win. Crispin sucks, you're the best, blah blah blah.
Posted by: kmf | Jan 18, 2007 11:40:42 PM
By the way, what's an "ill-informed attitude"?
You got some 'splaining to do.
Posted by: kmf | Jan 18, 2007 11:41:29 PM
I love little defensive kmf. Keep up the blog fighting, baby! You'll show 'em.
Posted by: kmf lover | Jan 19, 2007 12:11:12 AM
my question is: why would anyone want to resurrect OR? he was Oreck with popcorn. dreary and awful and tacky. even back in the day. he was not beloved.
Posted by: ron berger | Jan 19, 2007 12:20:46 AM
Crispin ressurects everything from the past. Especially if it involves a spokes-character. It's part of their formula. And they probably were too sleep deprived to think any deeper.
Posted by: ron berger's answer | Jan 19, 2007 2:50:20 AM
Forest gump did this years ago and never won a pencil.
i am gonna go jerk off.
Posted by: Jason | Jan 19, 2007 4:21:53 AM
Just beyond creepy.
Actually kinda lazy.
Technically lame.
I change the channel.
Not buying the product.
Posted by: LJ | Jan 19, 2007 8:59:01 AM
The reason why the commercial is creepy is a phenomenon known as the "uncanny valley."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley
It's a gut-level, instinctual negative response to things that are almost human. The theory suggests this is to prevent humans from procreating with others who are genetically inferior, or to stay away from disease-ridden dead bodies.
Hey, I feel like eating popcorn now.
Posted by: Uncanny Valley | Jan 19, 2007 10:10:59 AM
kmf lover-
can i get your number?
Posted by: kmf | Jan 19, 2007 10:23:11 AM
(305) 859-2070
Posted by: kmf lover | Jan 19, 2007 10:35:38 AM
hey, that's my number!
Posted by: kmf | Jan 19, 2007 1:02:12 PM
My band's name just officially changed from Deadenbacher to Uncanny Valley.
Posted by: CorruptedJournalist | Jan 19, 2007 5:09:59 PM
f crispin.
Posted by: jay slack | Jan 19, 2007 11:20:14 PM
Orville Deadenbacher, that's great! Hope that catches on. It's the most unintentionally creepiest commercial ever!
Posted by: The Deadenbachers are coming! | Jan 20, 2007 8:00:01 PM
Here, courtesy of Cartoon Brew, are just a few of the "raves" popping up on blogs: "Y'know, I thought that cannibalizing old footage of Fred Astaire was kind of a tacky idea 11 years ago. But after this, I'm beginning to like the first idea." "While watching Criminal Minds tonight, I saw the most sick and disturbing thing--yes, the commercials featuring a reanimated Orville Redenbacher. If you haven't seen it, it's not an old films clip or anything--it's basically CGI of a man's corpse dancing around. I'm sorry, but that's just freaking creepy." "Digital Orville Redenbacher freaks me right out. He is dead. Let's let him be dead. Because Zombie Orville is just wrong, wrong, wrong." "I just saw the scariest shit ever. A commercial for Orville Redenbacher popcorn in which they used the man himself as a spokesperson. Yes, he's been dead for some time. They brought him back anyway. So beyond the questionable wisdom of using a dead man as your spokesman, they decided to go totally digital. So now it actually looks like they dug up the old man's corpse and made it talk and move with marionette strings. The lips don't even sync with the dialogue!"
Posted by: They're talking?! | Jan 21, 2007 4:39:48 PM
Buzz is lame.
Posted by: stevehappens | Jan 22, 2007 12:38:42 AM
To the "ads that get them talking" crowd:
Google news returns a whopping 36 results for the term "orville redenbacher". The first page of results is almost 100% ad industry press.
Who, again, did this ad get talking?
Posted by: rushing | Jan 22, 2007 12:52:31 PM
Here's a great quote on this:
Mr. Bogusky said "there is a lot of power to the brand in being first to do it," referring to the digital animation used in the spot, which was created by Digital Domain. The Orville Redenbacher campaign, he said, "will always be mentioned when the next guy does it."
This is such a telling quote. Who is going to be talking about an ad technique in the future? Who is concerned with agency creatives being the first to use propriatary CGI technology? AD PEOPLE. Not real people. And does being consumed with generating buzz about the "agency and commercial making process" really benefit the client? It seems totally self serving.
Five years from now, when this technology has been perfected do you think people will still be talking about this ad when a new CGI character commercial appears? Can you remember the first tv commercial to re-dub celebrity stock footage? Or the first to do all live action computer generation? I can't. Only ad people and ad agencies care about this sort of "we got there first" crap. Real people just want to be entertained and not feel violated when they're watching the boob tube. Quit talking to the ad industry and trying to impress everyone with your "groundbreaking techniques" and start talking to your consumer.
By the way, I do respect any agency that pushes themselves to do groundbreaking work. It's just that I feel their focus should be on solving their client's creative problems while they're doing it. Not filling up their agency's PR machine and creating work that "will always be mentioned when the next guy does it."
Posted by: Alex Burguskie | Jan 23, 2007 9:13:27 AM
UGH...so creepy, it was better just seeing the original old commercial with the real guy and the old film quality. Totaly genuine. The new one is just a waste of technology and money.
I always say just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
Posted by: retropunk | Jan 24, 2007 7:26:01 AM
Two thoughts:
As much as we talk about taking risks in advertising, it doesn't seem like we can handle an agency taking a risk and failing. Maybe we should lighten up.
Secondly, knowing this is CPB I like to think they know something we don't, that this isn't failing in their minds. But then I think about it from the POV of everyone not in ad-land, and the effect is that "the ad agency" screwed up in a big way.
So, I'm torn. Curious to see how this pans out.
Posted by: wherearemypants | Jan 24, 2007 7:56:21 PM
I think the criticism has a lot to do with the fact that Crispin made this ad.
Lots of people make horrible ads. But because Crispin did this, and then went and did a ton of PR bragging about how "groundbreaking" it is and how "no other agency has done this before". It's almost like they were throwing the softball up in the air for everyone to hit.
If this ad were made by Gray or McCann - no-one would be as harsh on it. But because CPB comes off in the press sounding like they think they're the greatest thing on earth. And Alex and Chuck boldly claim to the be media agnostics with a "new way" and decry all other agencies to be dinosaurs - well, the backlash was bound to start.
Honestly, After producing a year of work that included Coke Zero's Chilltop, the Haggar stuff, VW's Fast and Slash guitar ads, and Miller Lite's Taste Trial. Well, maybe they were about due to be called out on doing something bad?
But, in the end, it's really just a bad ad. Outside of the advertising blogs - in the real world -reaction to Deadenbacher seems just as harsh and critical.
Posted by: Notsoeasy. | Jan 25, 2007 1:58:06 AM
The Emperor is f-ing naked.
The ad is a piece of shit.
Posted by: Frankie | Apr 24, 2007 3:54:22 PM
