« Air New Zealand also does long-form nudity | Main | Taxi PSA captures nightmare of Parkinson's »
CP+B site becomes 'giant digital fishing net'
Crispin Porter + Bogusky is the latest agency to revamp its Web site with an eye toward aggregating content and letting others around the Web tell its story. The site, now in beta, collects videos, Tweets, news headlines and blog entries that mention the agency or its work—"the good, the bad, the mildly unnerving," as a large-afro-ed Alex Bogusky says in the video above (which, given all his gesturing about the navigation, makes more sense to view over on the site itself). The effort is less experimental in form than either the Modernista! site or BooneOakley's YouTube channel, but does cede control of the message largely to outside parties, which connotes authenticity these days—particularly with all the Crispin haters out there. It's nice to see @BogusBogusky make an appearance, too. |
|
June 30, 2009 in Agency web sites, Crispin Porter, Nudd | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
dear god, with the pause button hovering over his face like that bogusky looks like he's got some kinda horrific skeleton clown face. creepy.
Posted by: FreeTapirRides | Jun 30, 2009 3:30:29 PM
I mean it works at illustrating buzzbuilding. I wonder if someone will spam the site.
Posted by: golublog | Jun 30, 2009 5:29:17 PM
Cheap shot but: http://www.perspctv.com/q/cpbgroup
I'm hoping there is a round 2 surprise gotcha in a couple weeks.
Posted by: perspective | Jun 30, 2009 7:11:50 PM
While most big agency sites are too uselessly Flashtastic, this new site from CP+B seems to have gone too far toward uselessly socialriffic.
Posted by: aaron | Jun 30, 2009 8:14:33 PM
Why is this news? Aren't they pretty much just following in the footsteps of Modernista, Boone Oakley, etc.?
Posted by: Wyatt | Jul 1, 2009 10:36:16 AM
Once again we are forced to see, listen and read the paid advertisements that Adweek calls Ad news. It's so shameful, censored and ridiculous PR we all have grown so tired off.
Posted by: SadWeek | Jul 1, 2009 7:09:56 PM
They're forcing me to read this, it's torture!
Posted by: Tim Nudd | Jul 1, 2009 9:13:18 PM
Tim, I grant you that SadWeek's claim that he (or she) is being "forced" to read items like this is a trifle over the top. But there is some truth to what he (or she) says. We are forced to rely on sites like yours and Adage's if we want to stay reasonably well informed on what is happening in the industry. The problem is, much of the content seems to be little more than minimally rewritten and repackaged press releases with little in the way of journalistic objectivity and integrity. Believe me, if there were another, more reliable source of advertising news, we'd be out of here in a shot.
Posted by: Wyatt | Jul 2, 2009 9:26:11 AM
Ok, that's your opinion.
My feeling is, anyone who reads this site regularly knows that it doesn't consist of "shameful, censored" PR or rewritten press releases.
We have an ongoing series about agency Web sites. Crispin reworks its site, people are going to be interested in the results. I certainly didn't get a press release about it, nor did I fawn over it.
Am I required to piss all over something in order to seem "objective"?
Sadweek's comment just came across as bizarre to me.
Posted by: Tim Nudd | Jul 2, 2009 9:53:27 AM
My bad, Tim. I should have made it clear I was referring more to the official Adweek site rather than Adfreak when I complained about how much of the content seemed to be nothing more than "rewritten press releases."
And no, you don't have to piss on anything to prove your objectivity. If you like Crispin's new site, fine. As it happens, I like it, too. I just question how newsworthy it is when they simply seem to be reacting to what Modernista and Boone Oakley have done rather than coming up with something completely new.
You have your opinions and Adfreak is the proper forum to air them. But Adweek proper should strive for a more even, nuanced and balanced tone of reporting. It just seems (and I stress the word "seems") that all too often, Adweek just reports what agencies feed them via press releases or whatever without providing proper context.
So, yeah, Sadweek went a little too far out in left field by labeling Adweek's coverage as "shameful" and "censored." But there is still room for improvement.
Posted by: Wyatt | Jul 2, 2009 11:36:28 AM
