Interesting little debate here I culled from the always wonderful Things Magazine.
In a nutshell: This ties in with what my faithful companion Goldie was saying about Poligrip trumpeting about "ooze control" ie. some obscure aspect of a product being squashed and buggered into an ad under the misconception it's an incredible and appealing selling-point.
I see this quite a lot. I mean who in god's name thought "ooze control" sounded good? Answer: The client, because they invented it. So who allowed it in the ad? Well, that's a matter of contention.
Whoever's responsible either way, the outcome is always the same: a completely naff, or weird, or incoherent, or just plain shit piece of work - a great creative off-set by an incongruous, unappealing bit of techno-guff.
From a writer's point of view this is less about the overall direction of a piece of work, and more about the way a piece is developed. A brief (spelt right today?) might be about - I dunno - tampons. I write a lovely, flowery, sensitive and subtle piece of copy for it. Account people love it but -doh! We forgot to tell you the client wants us to mention the the chairman's daughter has just passed her A-Levels, in it. Or "they're really keen to stress the interest free credit but can we maybe mention it's his wedding anniversary, too." Or "we love that Poligrip is a safe, reasurring household brand, but can you mention it no longer spews, splurges or discharges from people's mouths."
Too. Many. Cooks. Spoil. The. Broth. Ok?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment