An "Expression of Joy", or just a big payday for making a mess?

I like creative endeavors much more than any type analytical or mathematical issues. I like that creative work is not a right or wrong answer. It is open to interpretation.

Here is an interpretation: BMW will spend tons of cash on a project that involves a kid that was born in South Africa, has a French accent, and looks like he grew up in south-central L.A.

BMW based an entire ad campaign around this … individual having a large piece of white medium placed on the floor of a warehouse and a driver would drive a Z4 roadster around with remote controlled paint nozzles spewing paint on the tires and they make curvy lines all over the floor. Then this other nozzle, this ‘artist’, stands out there spinning around squeezing pain out of milk jugs onto the floor. This then warrants a half-hour show on Discovery HD Theatre and a big ‘exhibit’ in NYC. I have seen pre-schoolers throw temper-tantrums with paint, milk, juice, whatever in their hands had have the same effect as him. What warrants any type of credibility for this clown?

This is called the “Expression of Joy”. Well if that is the case, I have seen tons of expressions of joy on the roads of America for years. It happens when someone drives through wet paint stripes on the road and start switching lanes. Here's some joy right here.

This was a 9-day process. Watch any of the video [ie: “the Making Of” link at the bottom of www.expressionofjoy.com and you will see some of the intense preparation that went into this. Adding remote sprayers to the car, lighting, cameras and field monitors everywhere. Letting some idiot hold a piece of wood with 2 crayons attached to it so he can ‘exercise’ his artistic prowess on a piece of paper and layout some lines as they might look as the car puts the paint down. Hey genius: that car is set up to drop any one color from one tire…not 2 tires. Your little wooden wonder is actually not accurate.

This is the great part of creative work…there’s going to be some who don’t like it, and so what. He got paid big money to make a mess and got big exposure as a bonus. W00t!

Nine Secret Words

I have started in on what appears to be a great book.

First of all, it is full of 1-2 page ‘essays’. No long drawn out chapters of ramblings and such. Very to-the-point. I like that.

The first installment, or chapter, is called “Nine Secret Words”. It is just over 1 page long. That is right up my alley. It tells you the Nine Secret Words, and explains it in that short time. Amazing.

I am ready to tear into this book even though I have so many other things to do. After 1 and ¼ pages, I am hooked.

I have peeked into the next chapter, it too is only 1 and a half pages long, and after the first 2/3 of the first page, I find myself wanting to point out my favorite part, but I will stick to chapter one for now.

What was that? What are the Nine words? OK. Here they are:

“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.”

In other, and more, words: To be understood, we must speak as simply, plainly, and truthfully as possible.

The author state: “that while the others debate the necessity of ruffling and few feathers, I am usually in the backyard plucking the chicken…[those who do the same] will enjoy rewards far beyond a chicken dinner.”

Has clarity, candor and the plain truth just become a victim of political correctness and a fear of pissing someone, and I do mean ONE, off? These days, all you have to do is say something to rub one person the wrong way, and it’s a “federal case”, if you will. I find that this applies to not just advertising, but personal communications as well. How many times do we stop and think before even making the slightest comment for fear of angering someone within ear-shot? How many egg-shells do agencies walk on trying to avoid pissing someone off?

Not too long ago, a Snickers Ad aired with Mr. T getting on a speed walkers case. Telling him to “run like a man”, etc. The gay community when ape shit. The ad was pulled. Mr. T felt a need to defend himself. It was a big hoopty-do. Why? Nowhere was it said that this speed walker was gay. The character didn’t utter one word. He was just speed walking. But yet some elements of the gay community felt the need to call it degrading or offensive. The ad was pulled. Why? Just because a self-proclaimed victimized group was offended? By “self-proclaimed victimized”, I mean by this ad. I won’t even get into the other Snickers ad that suffered the same fate. Does anyone really thing that Mars had an anti-gay agenda? I doubt it. They are suicidal of they did. They are actually making fun of non-gays in the second spot.

Now, back to the point. When someone is afraid of being accused of something, or ruffling feathers, the message gets lost. Especially the marketing message.

So, if ruffling a few feathers doesn’t put you off, “meet me in the backyard…we’ll start with a chicken dinner and then we’ll take over the world.”

By the way, it's called "The Wizard of Ads" and I am sure I'll share other chapters soon. Like the next one that I have already peeked at....

Is it the money GEICO wasted?

Well, the first rule of advertising is to get people to notice you.*
GEICO now has a new campaign that has a silent stack of five dollar bills with bug-eyes on it starting at people. The general premise is that it’s the money that you could be saving by switching to GEICO.

Interesting concept. Original even.

Effective? That is yet to be seen.

Silly? Fairly certain.

Stupid? Open to debate.

The Martin agency has been handling the GEICO account for some time now. [Cavemen, the Gecko Lizard, ‘Real People , etc.] I have no doubt that they are still the agency of record. While I am fairly certain that they have large dollar figures on the books and the ability to say that deep pockets like GEICO keep coming back to them is a major selling point when wooing new clients, I have to just wonder.
Wonder how a giggling woman in a restaurant with a seemingly out-of-touch husband being taken care of by a Chinese waiter while this stack of money stares at them works. The meeting with the ‘stack’ on a window cleaning rig outside? The ‘stack’ sitting on a white shoot set with voice-over, at times will ultra close-ups of the ‘stack’.

Maybe we should all stop trying so hard.


*Many will argue that it is something else, but as a general rule, that is what advertising is.

Ozzie and Samsung

By now I am sure that you have seen the spots for the Samsung qwerty equipped Propel cell phones featuring Ozzie Osborne mumbling his way through his day and only making through because he can text what he means quickly to those who cannot understand him. While I am not sure exactly what he has, some call it ‘tremors’ and others say it is a mild form of Parkinson’s, but whatever it is Samsung and Leo Burnett had to have weighed the risks in running this campaign. No matter what you do anymore, there is going to be a group that wants to complain. How does an organization measure that risk?

I believe that you can measure the risk in an ads potential “viral value”. It might cost a standard $3-5 million to get a campaign done, but if it stirs enough muck up from the bottom of the pond and gets attention, any attention; it has done its job. It doesn’t matter of you are ‘forced’ to pull it after 4, 5, or 8 weeks. People will then look to YouTube to see what people are talking about. The ad will be watched and no media buys were needed! Does this type of approach come without risk then? No. It doesn’t. Even if your talent has agreed to poke fun or make light of their condition, many others who have it, know people that have it, and/or care for those who have it can take offense. To a large and loud degree. The PR backlash can be huge.

PR issues are bad enough. Self-inflicted PR issues are even worse. If you have a laptop line that can spontaneously burst into flames, that is a bad situation. Intentionally producing potentially ‘offensive’ advertising is quite another.

Ozzy is not a fool. His wife Sharon is reputed to be one of the shrewdest business managers around. This is by no means a mocking of the man or his condition. But perception and reality are two very different things, and quite often perception is the only thing that matters.

There is no way that the Osborne’s need the money. They have tons of cash. Perhaps they are donating the money to Parkinson’s research? Perhaps they just wanted to add to their checking account. Who knows, but I am just waiting for some group to start calling for the ads to be pulled. Often when they cry loud enough, corporate PR suggests pulling the ads and they are then relegated to being on YouTube.

Any way that you look at it, it’s a clever campaign and I don’t think Ozzie is being manipulated, and if he is, it is by his wife. I hope that it continues to run. Good work Leo Burnett.

$300M in billings

That's a lot of money.

That is what CP+B has gotten in billings from Microsoft so far.

The latest challenge is an opportunity to do something, anything with the Microsoft Zune MP3 player.

It's amazing what a corporation will throw at an agency to build a campaign. Hundreds of millions of dollars.

I am not going to get into what it could possibly be that these people think that these agencies can or will come up with that is worth that kind of money or what super-human abilities that they have are, especially after the whole Sienfeld fiasco earlier this year.

Anyway, congratulations to CP+B on the deal. And that is only one of their clients.

you can't win them all.

Well, after another week, and a few more 'episodes' of the Seinfeld/Gates fiasco, it looks like someone started to get it. Whatever was spent on that CP+B campaign for Microsoft was a waste of cash, time, and film. Not everything can be a home-run. CP+B is a shop to envy. They are good. That is why this is so baffling to me.

I am looking forward to any post-mortem from anyone close to the situation that might pop up in the near future.

IMHO, it was doomed from the start. Gates is not an actor. Seinfeld is not an actor, and is rather un-funny outside of the controlled environment of his long gone sitcom. In that forum, it allowed him to hide behind writers of scripted dialog and great cast members. Now perhaps a Microsoft campaign with Larry David...that has a chance. Even if it's just as a writer.

A spot revolving around the 'everyday' family looking for a giraffe sculpture and questioning the kids only to come to realize that gates and Seinfeld are in the house too, so these gazillionaires are stealing from their hosts? Perhaps the final nail in this one, and I think it is the last in the series is the two of them walking down the street dragging suitcases and they cut to a wide shot from behind [like in the first one when were are lead to believe that PCs will be made out of cake soon...] and Seinfeld asks for another "sign" and asks him to do "The Robot" and then powers him down....I can't even image what they were smoking when they came up with this stuff.

In all fairness, most ideas in brainstorming sessions are dumped on the scrap-heap. It's just a fact of advertising life. That is why we have 'pitch sessions' where we share the concept with people, most often the client, but it can be with a group within the agency that was not involved in the creation of this concept. The whole idea is a fresh set of eyes, ears, and brains on this thing. The idea behind this is of it sucks, those who conceived it might be too close and have a conflict of interest when it comes to the viability of the whole thing. An outsider can look at it more objectively…usually.

Anyway, my question is this: How did this get past all of the potential safeguards. Didn’t anyone question this? Did a higher-up that loved it push it through without regard for any red-flags? Did everyone really like it? If they did was it because CP+B did it and their track record give the illusion that if it was a CP+B idea, it must be good?

Who really knows but those directly involved. Either way, keep in mind: a.) you can’t win them all. B.) This will not affect Fates or Seinfeld in anyway. C.) Nobody really cares what I think anyway. Let the comments fly…

What is Microsoft thinking?

I have had to hold off on any criticism or judgement on the new Microsoft/Seinfeld ad campaign launched by Microsoft recently.

I have seen it enough times now to officially form an opinion. It's ridiculous. Seinfeld needs to just walk away. His show was and to a great extent still is funny. He has even stated that the show was a prime example of what a person with no acting talent can accomplish when they surround themselves with great talent. Bill Gates is not funny. He is not a pretty face. He is not an actor.

The story line is reasonable. Bill Gates in a discount shoe store in a mall. It falls apart quickly from there. "Is that your toe?" "No, it's leather." and a stupid awkward moment of staring between the two? Showering while dressed? Will computers be like cakes so we can eat them while we work? I can't believe that CP+B did this. With great campaigns like the counterfeit mini spots, and many very clever print ads for mini, this is terrible.

I wonder what CP+B got paid for this. I wonder if Seinfeld has full 'comedic' control over it. I wonder....