Ok, I've left a lot of videos for you to watch in this post. There may be more things out here like this, but after coming across all of these, and forming some of my own opinions, I decided to post just based on these videos.
I'll go one by one. First, you've got the "Speed Dressing" spot for JC Penney...err...it says JC Penney in the commercial. But they never approved it. But it won a bronze at Cannes. Big backlash. JC Penney agency Saatchi & Saatchi said they didn't do it (and anyone else who's familiar w/ this story, correct me if i'm wrong), and put the blame on the production house, Epoch. Yet throughout all of this, it seems Jacques Penet has been getting an awful lot of free press. And, honestly, this spot is 14732 times better than the new campaign that they did give the OK to.
After that, there are two spots for Heineken. When they hit the web, Heineken denied any knowledge of it and claimed to have nothing to do with it. They're pretty outlandish, so of course they wouldn't want to say they were complicit in it. Many suspected that they let it go through with a blind eye to it. Turns out, despite the production quality, these were made by some students. Read the full article here, though only part of it's in English. These have had some nice viral success. Say what you will about the effectiveness of viral, but Heineken didn't spend a dime on this, and are getting free publicity out of it.
And last, a spot "from" Guinness. I could go asking around at work, but I'm sure nobody will eagerly speak up to say they did it. My guess is this is either student work or just a fan, though I could be completely wrong. Hopefully more details will come soon.
The purpose for bringing these to light is this: all of these are examples of companies' brands being used in advertising for which they didn't pay. I doubt JC Penney will agree to pay for the production that went into "Speed Dressing." Heineken had nothing to do with "Blowjob" and "Suicide." And the Guinness one was, to my knowledge at this point, done without anything to do with Diageo footing the bill.
This brings about a slough of questions, all of which I ask people to give their opinions in the comments:
Is this the beginning of a trend of more and more people creating their own "advertisements," either for schoolwork or as a hobby? The technology is easily within reach for many, many more people to do so today than ever before. Could the free publicity out of user-generated advertising result in advertisers spending less with the real agencies if this continues unabated?
On a different note, is it ok for an agency to create something against the will of or unbeknownst to the client? What if it's guaranteed to be award-winning? What if it proves more fruitful for the advertiser, via awards or publicity? What if the agency is willing to foot the bill (CP+B has been known to do that) if the client wants nothing to do with it? After all, winning a prestigious award can help an agency's reputation and bring in new business.
If you think any more questions come out of this, feel free to ask them, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is this the beginning of a trend of more and more people creating their own "advertisements," either for schoolwork or as a hobby? The technology is easily within reach for many, many more people to do so today than ever before. Could the free publicity out of user-generated advertising result in advertisers spending less with the real agencies if this continues unabated?
I don't think it really is the start of this trend as it has been going on for a while. There was that whole thing about 'user generated ads' a while back. It died rather quickly which is an interesting thing to note - not like a slow descent into nothing, but rather just halted.
As for consumers making their own ads - well, that's been around for a while too. Barbara Kruger, Andy Warhol -- they all took their own spin on advertising. There was a Guerrilla group in the 80's which took Barbies and GI Joes, swaped their voice boxes, then put them back on the shelves. The idea was just to create some stir.
Of course, with the emergence of YouTube and better equipment (in the way of better quality, more usability and a more affordable price) it has moved into a TV spot realm. However, there is that artist in NY who is making faux American Apparel ads and putting them up around the city.
As for the clients -- I hate to say it but, at the end of the day, we work for them. I'll be the first to say that I think clients 99.9% of the time are very stodgy and boring, but we are spending their money.
I like what CPB does to get the clients to agree to more risque moves - if the idea bombs you don't have to pay us. But even this, I feel, is a slippery slope with a client, it gives them the chance to cry wolf at any moment (and to save a buck, I'm sure they would).
I agree. People have been making their own ads for a long time now. But it does seem to be getting more notice as of late.
I doubt that this alone would be the cause of a client spending less on advertising, though. The consumer generated ads that manage to get enough publicity to really bring awareness to a brand usually don't happen twice for one brand, or last for more than '15 minutes'..so it certainly wouldn't take the place of a paid campaign, but instead just be a (usually) welcomed addition.
While it may not be ethical business-wise for agencies to go behind their clients' backs to make an ad, I think it's something that will always happen regardless. Because clients are many times so boring and restricting, especially to creatives, I think it's only in their nature to rebel against it...even in the more 'conventional' agencies. And many times it turns out great for the brand. More often than not, I think. So I personally have no problem with the fact that agencies take that risk.
About the JCP scandal--any of you catch the article that the two guys who worked on it left the agency? Makes me wonder if all the blame really rests on the production company.
Post a Comment