By now, we all (including those who couldn't care less about the advertising industry) know and recognize the iPod ads instantly. But to me, these are as formulaic as they get. See below.
Essentially, we're saying the same visual executions with slight differences in sillouete and color scheme every single time. The class instructor, an art director at Olson in Minneapolis, agreed that the iPod ads were infact formulaic. Now look at the ads for the Minnesota Film and TV Board below:
Very similar executions, with different pictures, and different copy. The idea stays the same. But what makes this ok on the non-formulaic meter, and the iPod not? Or is it? Regardless of how you answer, we get back to the original question of what makes a campaign a campaign? As everything is in the ad industry, it's a subjective thing.
But can you have one ad that solves things visually, and one that does it with copy (communicating the same big and smaller idea) and have it be the same campaign? As usual, all thoughts are very much appreciated.
1 comment:
Maybe this is besides the point, but on the 2nd campaign I think it was a mistake to show a bridge in two of the executions.
I think, like with everything else, if you nail the lines you can do whatever the hell you want. Here, its "just working," but big deal, you could execute that same thing 20 more times. And probably a lot better.
If you're doing the same thing 3 times, your copy is going to have to be a lot harder working. If you can do it well 3 different ways, the idea of the execution will provide a little relief for the copy.
Let's face it, if you saw a campaign executed the same way 3 times, but the headlines were killer on all of them, you wouldn't mind.
As far as the Ipod ads. Never was a big fan.
Post a Comment