SEEN+NOTED: MAKE ALIENS SQUINT
March 3 2009, 7:48 pm | | 14 Comments
Ogilvy & Mather Singapore is behind this new Maglite Torch print campaign.
Credits
Creative Team: Ross Fowler, Elyn Wong.
CDs: Eugene Cheong, Stuart Mills, Paul Anderson.
Photography/Digital Imaging: KC at Mirage Works.
14 Comments
Gold at Cannes.
Zip at D&AD.
Of course, its the perfect torch for those times when you’re making an unplanned trip to uranus.
The craft has been pushed but not the idea. Bangkok really cracked this brand so it has to be very good to stand out.
Stop it Ogilvy. Stop it.
I think its done before, for a binoculars brand.
first of all it’s another scam that makes Singapore look like a joke. Second, it’s a rip off of a BMF Sydney campaign for telescopes about 8 years ago. Last of all this isn’t half as relevant. The fact that it got gold at Cannes and zip at D&AD says it all really.
11.23 doubt it got ‘gold at cannes, zip at d&ad’–seems to be a prediction. But who knows, all it takes is an agency sympathiser on the jury.
My question however was…do you really need 3 ads that tell the exact same story?
Thank you 6.06. as it is a new campaign and cannes and D&AD has not happened yet i believed it would be obvious to 11.23 so for his or her benefit my statement was that it’s the type of ad that wins at cannes and misses at D&AD. Get it now 11.23.
3 ads to tell the same story? it happens all the time to Lions.
Its been done. BMF Sydney. Two Bronze Lions at Cannes. Ogilvy and out!!!
Call it what you like guys but this is metal at any show.
Correct 10.37.
It gets my vote. I don’t know why people can’t see these ads for what they are. A bit of fun.
Because they are not a bit of fun. They are a cynical attempt to win awards through the use of a tired formula just to pile up award points. They are not fun. They are not creative. They are not original. And they are a symptom of the worst spirit of this business, making us look further like the irrelevant industry we are becoming.
Nice work 4.26. Couldn’t have said it better myself. On the other hand you could accept the argument that they are only a bit of fun and therefore not a proper exercise in creative business communication. In which case they should be binned by any jury that sees them. because they are not to be taken seriously. either way, they’re best ignored
How much longer are we going to keep digging this hole? And how deep can this hole get?