Much covered
29 November 2008 – 7:25 pm
This one from Mars got the marketing media excited.
No reason not to combine house brands, and keep media space spend down. But, what is actually looking to achieve?
Take one advert…
29 November 2008 – 7:20 pm
… and scruff it up. Noticeable, memorable and slightly different.
Mixing it up
29 November 2008 – 7:17 pm
This Times advertising campaign, although not too exciting, demonstrates a good use of both real life and animated characters.
IMA Awards 2008
5 November 2008 – 12:02 pm
AMC Network in lights!
Maryam wins/borrows an award!
Mark Kermode, having fun.
The lawyers!
Mike Nutley, doing the rounds.
Seskin and Glynn looking happy.
London 2012
5 November 2008 – 10:43 am
Coming recently from a breakfast at the IPA, Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, I was interested to hear some sly marketing people looking to infringe the good sponsors of the London 2012 Olympics.
With marketing packages reputedly in the millions of pounds, it is easy to see why even big brands are looking for a coat tail ride, circumventing the status of Official Sponsor.
LOCOG, who are looking after the legal aspects of the event, are not having any of it. Even touting the, ha, ha, unofficial sponsor line, will land marketers in hot water.
Legislation is now so strict, that anything one does to tap in to the public psyche can be deemed in contravention of the new rules.
Faster, quicker, better and such words, are all that are needed in advertisements around the time of the games, to hear from the legal team at LOCOG.
My stance is, this hard line action needs to be communicated well, otherwise London 2012 are going to look like total meanies. Preventing little local organisations from sharing in the Olympic fun. This is tabloid heaven.
The reality is, without such legislation, self policing by marketers just does not work. I know, as I have seen many unofficial people look to profit from high profile projects we have been involved with.
What do you think? Are LOCOG meanies? Or, are these the steps which must be taken to prevent Olympic brand exploitation by major brands? Who incidentally can usually afford the Olympic ratecard.
BT, above in the photograph, is of course an Official Sponsor. It would have to be, or LOCOG would not tolerate its City building being dressed in a branded wrap!
However, even for me, confusion now sets in. Is BT a bid, or, actual games sponsor? What are they sponsoring? So the athletes all use BT phones? Confusing isn’t it.
This confusion was not helped by the bid team, who it appears were happy for all the support possible when pitching (sic) for the games, but are now are keen to micro-manage even the smallest of enterprises.
Finally, after reading the official marketing booklet issued by LOCOG, which is actually quite humorous. I would advise that encouraging such action as the playing of the National Lottery to support the games, is far from good public relations.
Cactus Kid
24 October 2008 – 11:04 am
This one is quite good fun. If done a little too often before to be wholly original. What do you think of UGC? Is it working?
Are leaves and animals over?
18 October 2008 – 9:00 am
At one of our design agencies this week. We were speaking about the leaves, animal and swirl look of the last 36 months. This was cool. Now it is looking over used.
Camper, is a fairly cool brand, so can probably pull it off.
However, the more lower end high street chains which adopt this look and feel, the less brand value it holds.
The ubercool b.TWEEN summit of 2006 in Bradford, was an early adopter of this look. It has since moved on with its subsequent event branding.
Do you like leaves and animals? Has the look had its day? What do you predict the next trend will be?
Saatchi woz ´ere
18 October 2008 – 8:54 am
This campaign is simple and thought provoking. Not given its due by the marketing media.
Being somewhat of a historian, this visual got me thinking. To the extent that when I met a director of the London Transport Museum, one of my first questions was, if this was a real ticket.
Perhaps there are too many references to the war in the UK, but this very simple campaign has a wealth of thought behind it.
Must be uniform, or, not…
18 October 2008 – 8:46 am
Recently I sat through a London digital agency presentation. Proudly they told us how they had made one major oil company´s online brand the same worldwide.
I am glad to see some organisations be more adventurous than this. Lowe did this a while back for Stella. Multiple idents.
Here we have a good example with Swiss. They communicate the brand and country of origin well, in a quirky and fun way. When British Airways tried the non-uniform approach in the 1990s they were lambasted. Which is a shame. Mrs Thatcher being partly responsible.
It is good to try and create some sort of link between the countries a company is trading in, or, in these cases flying to and from.
So, audience, what do you think. Is the future non-uniform?