Recently, the: "It's the same thing three times"(or formulaic) critiscm has been brought up in class, and leads me to the question: When are you doing a different execution in the same campaign, and when are you doing a different ad (not the same campaign) for the same strategy?
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.