Filed under: advertising, creativity, marketing, politics | Tags: Donald trump, hillary clinton, mark gorman, think hard, US election, us election advertising
OK, negative electioneering gets a poor reception typically.
But when it’s great, it’s great. Right?
Especially when your opponent is an odious, racist fascist.
Beautifully put by the Democrats.
Filed under: advertising, business, creativity, marketing, politics, Uncategorized | Tags: body form blood ad, Bodyform, channel4, maltesers, maltesers disability ad, paralympics
As David Reviews says “This is one of three new commercials for Maltesers which won a competition launched by Channel 4 earlier in the year. The Paralympics broadcaster wanted to further its commitment to diversity by offering airtime to work which puts disability and diversity at the heart of a campaign.”
The commercial, one of three, is extremely “saucy” and as Bodyform did earlier in the year it has taken on a taboo subject (in their case menstruation; in this, disability) in a bold and confident manner.
Filed under: advertising, brands, business, creativity, design, marketing, politics | Tags: Bodyform, brave ads, breaking taboos, david reviews, feminine hygiene advertising, jason stone, taboo
In this spot by AMV for Bodyform decades of taboos are booted right into touch.
A splendid and brave production,. Well done all.
As Jason Stone says in his David Reviews piece on the spot it actually follows what is essentially the convention in the category by showing a bunch of women being active during their periods; the difference being that this is real, gritty and shows the red stuff.
Of course Bodyform has previous in this category with this hilarious spoof…
Filed under: advertising, brands, business, creativity, politics | Tags: American political brands, Donald Trump Republicans, mark gorman, think hard, US election
OK, so the Republican race isn’t over yet but Donald Trump is now three to one ON in the betting to win the Republican nomination, with Ted Cruz now 4/1.
Now, I’m not saying Cruz is an angel, because he sure is not, but it says an awful lot about the state of the American electorate that Donald Trump has been able to muster such a remarkable following under the auspices of a brand that I could only describe as toxic.
Most certainly it is toxic in the UK.
And for liberal America it too repulses commentators most notably in this MSNBC report by a visibly shocked Rachel Maddow. In the broadcast above Maddow creates a timeline of Trump speeches (you’ll have seen many of these snippets before so it’s not clever editing at play here) of the escalating call for an end to the toleration of protesters at Trump rallies and an increasing call for violence that led to the riots in Chicago.
It’s only one aspect of ‘Brand Trump’ that is so much the antithesis of Obama’s winning campaigns, that it makes me wonder if it can be the same electorate that is being addressed.
Now, sure, Obama’s dream is far from realised, but the quiet dignity with which he has presided over his office is a lesson in diplomacy for many leaders.
The tone adopted by Trump on the other (small) hand threatens to drive the US political system into farce.
But, like all good brands, the tone of voice is consistent.
One might also describe it as disruptive because it’s taking US politics and entirely reframing it.
In that respect it is as masterful as Obama’s Hope campaign.
But people, ultimately, are frightened of disruption.
Brand owners particularly so.
So, we can only hope that ‘Brand Republican’ sees, in time, that sub-brand Trump is about to kill its parent.
I mean, is this how you’d like your brand satirised on national TV and global internet?
Filed under: advertising, brands, business, creativity, design, marketing, politics | Tags: ideas, marketing efficiency, ROI
I honestly thought I’d seen it all until I woke this morning to an email from a company called Percolate who have published a “White Paper”.
“Ooh, a White Paper – must be important and true because David Cameron has signed it off, what incredible words of wisdom does it hold within its shimmering virginal covers?”
“As the pressure to demonstrate the value of marketing grows, one overlooked metric for return on investment (ROI) analysis is on the rise. Non working spend [my emboldening] is the cost of producing marketing content, as opposed to media spend distributing it.”
Here it is in more detail. In case you think I made a dreadfully stupid assumption.
Yes, it really does say “Non working [spend) is EVERYTHING ELSE [my caps].”
So, my thirty year career, not to mention that of my planning friends, my creative buddies, my TV producers, digital content creators, print buyers, secretaries (back in the day), studio managers and those scary guys that work for them but deliver such great work…they’re all “non working spend.”
A necessary evil.
Expensive grist to the media mill owners.
Jeezo. I’m gonna have to take a little minute here.
I’m a little shaken, I admit.
I mean it’s a fucking White Paper. Not just any old made up shit.
Sorry I let you down. Remember I told you I worked in a reputable industry where I made a difference – along with Charlie, and Smudger and Jimbo and Will?
Yeah. That’s them.
And Gerry too and Raymond, and Roger.
Yeah, yes Victoria and Ruth.
All just “Non Working Spend.”
That guy at the government. Remember I told you about him?
The guy you liked off the telly?
No, not George Osborne, he’s a bad man.
The Scottish guy.
Remember I came home and told you he said advertising people were like “leeches’?
Yup, that’s him.
Well, he was right, ‘cos it’s in a White Paper.
We’re all just “Non Working Spend.”
You don’t believe me?
Read it here.
Filed under: advertising, brands, creativity, politics | Tags: marketing the referendum, Scottish Independence, scottish independence referendum, Yes Scotland
Interesting piece I contributed to in yesterday’s Times.
It’s pretty accurate except for the piece where I say the headline is going to be laughed out of court.
The headline I was referring to was one that claimed that Scotland would be one of the world’s wealthiest nations after independence.
I stand by that as it’s way too extreme a claim to make (true or otherwise) .
The ad in the article is actually more benefit driven and works well (IMHO) and, consequently, is much more believable.
Filed under: politics | Tags: Scottish Independence, Scottish politics, Thatcher, thatcherism, Yes Scotland
Margaret Thatcher loathed the benfit driven leeches that she perceived Scotland to be.
But, we never elected her, just like we never elected David Cameron and his cronies.
Cameron is too scared to even debate independence with Alex Salmond because he realises AS OUR LEADER he a) has no mandate b) we loathe him c)In his own admissions he is too posh.
It’s interesting then, that in between the 70’s and teenies Independence pushes, Thatcher was an unwitting advocate of the outcome of independence.
By paraphrasing the quote below she was saying “We don’t want this lot. We want to break them. We want rid of them.”
Well, let’s grant her her wish posthumously; shall we?
I am indebted to James Mclaughlin for the inspiration for this poster idea, but please forgive the shocking art direction and general cobbled togetherness.
It’s the thought that counts.