Today's ad that'll make art directors touch their genitals.
Ad agency: Saatchi & Saatchi, Cape Town. Previously in: ads that made art directors touch their genitals.
posted by copyranter @ 12:30 PM
copyranter
SEND ME TIPS: copyranter(at)gmail(dot)com
Previous Posts
- Zappos's new naked women ads: gratuitous or not?
- How embarrassing: "dancing" Hugh Jackman Lipton Ic...
- Russian Ad Watch: selling cigarettes to teen girls.
- Taiwan, you're naming your stores wrong.
- Link Haze, 7/12/11.
- Fresh Catch of the Day: Misogyny.
- Well ladies, true or false?
- ...and here's former Miss Universe model Helene Tr...
- Creepy Reporters Without Borders Daniel Pearl memo...
- New Got Milk? campaign is laughably sexist.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Ad agency: Saatchi & Saatchi, Cape Town. Previously in: ads that made art directors touch their genitals.
13 Comments:
So the excessive photoshop animal abuse is what's bothering you, Ranter? This is a beautiful ad, designed to raise awareness. Did you expect the AD's to show an actual dead or burning animal? I think someone's being jealous.
Great concept. This is the best execution of the two versions.
Nah, it don't bother me, I'm just pushing buttons of today's slaves to Digital.
Yes Paoper, the baboon execution was forced.
smokey the hedgehog?
I-)
Touched!
OK, here's what bothers me about this ad. Why a hedgehog? Because matches work perfectly with one. Why not a more common forest animal, like say a deer or a bear or, etc? Because replacing their fur/hide with matches wouldn't work, would it? Pick some other animals that work, or it's a useless one-off.
So your issue with this ad is that it features a hedgehog and not a more common forest animal. Now, you are being nitpicky. It features a hedgehog because 1) it IS a forest animal, regardless of how common and 2) it's cute (it will endear the ad or campaign in general to most readers). Of all the comments I've read about this ad on various websites, not even one had to do with the choice of animals and whether it was relevant or good.
I appreciate your point (really), but it doesn't change my mind. It's a cute one-off, good for a portfolio, not good for the client.
> OK, here's what bothers me about
> this ad. Why a hedgehog?
umm... because the domain name is .za? so there may also be some cultural associations that they are using that work with a hedgehog versus a bear / deer? besides the obvious substitution of matches for quills. in NA, a deer with matches in its antlers might have a closer cultural association?
I-)
You don't get bears in South Africa but I did dress up as one once.
I ate my body weight in honey and then took
a huge shit in the woods.
It was hilarious.
Asking for a more 'common' forest animal is assuming it's a
campaign in a country where deers, bears and hillbillies are common forest-dwellers,
which it isn't.
These visuals are relevant to the animals at risk.
Not all ads are made in the NYC, despite what it says on Mad Men.
Thanks for taking the time to promote the campaign.
Your cheque and hedgehog pencil holder is in the post.
Keep up the great ranting.
After 18 years of service to an industry you
loath, you've earned it.
Say whatever you want Sparky, the baboon execution still doesn't work.
Also, copyranter is a character, lest you think that hate list is actually truthful.
Last say.
Post a Comment
<< Home