Kevin Gleeson <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> Ads have to grab your attention towards the product. That was nicely
> shot, nicely directed, but **** at promoting the product I reckon. You
> might as well just put a Michelin logo on screen with no sound for 30
> seconds and I think that would have grabbed as much attention and cost a
> shitload less to create.

But then people wouldn't have been talking about it in newsgroups, would
they...?

Brand awareness.

On Mar 11, 12:14*am, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...@imagine-it.com.au> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
> > Ads have to grab your attention towards the product. That was nicely
> > shot, nicely directed, but **** at promoting the product I reckon. You
> > might as well just put a Michelin logo on screen with no sound for 30
> > seconds and I think that would have grabbed as much attention and cost a
> > shitload less to create.
>
> But then people wouldn't have been talking about it in newsgroups, would
> they...?
>
> Brand awareness.

Exactly. In a month, the punch line will show up.

On 11 Mar 2010 08:14:22 GMT, Adrian <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Kevin Gleeson <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying:
>
>> Ads have to grab your attention towards the product. That was nicely
>> shot, nicely directed, but **** at promoting the product I reckon. You
>> might as well just put a Michelin logo on screen with no sound for 30
>> seconds and I think that would have grabbed as much attention and cost a
>> shitload less to create.
>
>But then people wouldn't have been talking about it in newsgroups, would
>they...?
>
>Brand awareness.

Yeah, but that is really a long link to me

They way I have always seen it is you either make an ad that annoys
the **** out of you but costs nothing to produce but gets brand
awareness because everyone loves to hate it,

Or you spend millions making something that truly sticks in your mind.
Anything in the mid-ground just gets lost in the muddle.

And that, while cleverly done, seemed to me to have lost the message.
I was serious when I said they would get more attention with a static
logo and dead air on sound.

I appreciate the techniques going into creating it, but reckon it is
crap as getting attention (apart from this discussion which is pretty
much irrelevant in the scheme of things).

Kev

Kevin Gleeson wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2010 08:14:22 GMT, Adrian <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Kevin Gleeson <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding
> >much like they were saying:
> >
> >> Ads have to grab your attention towards the product. That was nicely
> >> shot, nicely directed, but **** at promoting the product I reckon. You
> >> might as well just put a Michelin logo on screen with no sound for 30
> >> seconds and I think that would have grabbed as much attention and cost a
> >> shitload less to create.
> >
> >But then people wouldn't have been talking about it in newsgroups, would
> >they...?
> >
> >Brand awareness.
>
> Yeah, but that is really a long link to me
>
> They way I have always seen it is you either make an ad that annoys
> the **** out of you but costs nothing to produce but gets brand
> awareness because everyone loves to hate it,
>
> Or you spend millions making something that truly sticks in your mind.
> Anything in the mid-ground just gets lost in the muddle.
>
> And that, while cleverly done, seemed to me to have lost the message.
> I was serious when I said they would get more attention with a static
> logo and dead air on sound.

You've not really got your head around viral ads, have you?

I'm quite tickled by the idea of someone who claims not to have watched
TV in ten years lecturing anyone on TV ads too.

--
ogden | gsxr1000 | rgv250

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:24:24 -0000, ogden <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Kevin Gleeson wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2010 08:14:22 GMT, Adrian <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >Kevin Gleeson <(E-Mail Removed)> gurgled happily, sounding
>> >much like they were saying:
>> >
>> >> Ads have to grab your attention towards the product. That was nicely
>> >> shot, nicely directed, but **** at promoting the product I reckon. You
>> >> might as well just put a Michelin logo on screen with no sound for 30
>> >> seconds and I think that would have grabbed as much attention and cost a
>> >> shitload less to create.
>> >
>> >But then people wouldn't have been talking about it in newsgroups, would
>> >they...?
>> >
>> >Brand awareness.
>>
>> Yeah, but that is really a long link to me
>>
>> They way I have always seen it is you either make an ad that annoys
>> the **** out of you but costs nothing to produce but gets brand
>> awareness because everyone loves to hate it,
>>
>> Or you spend millions making something that truly sticks in your mind.
>> Anything in the mid-ground just gets lost in the muddle.
>>
>> And that, while cleverly done, seemed to me to have lost the message.
>> I was serious when I said they would get more attention with a static
>> logo and dead air on sound.
>
>You've not really got your head around viral ads, have you?
>
>I'm quite tickled by the idea of someone who claims not to have watched
>TV in ten years lecturing anyone on TV ads too.

Well I make the bloody things most days at work. I just don't watch
them when I get home.

I still reckon it is a tenuous link.

And confirms why I am so shitty with the industry I have worked in for
30 years. And I still reckon a screen with logo and no sound would get
more attention, because everyone has got so used to that ****ing box
in the corner blaring all day that 30 seconds of silence would be
abnormal.

Anyway, seems I've picked up a job in Sydney working for Westpac bank
as an IT project manager. Dunno whether I have sold my soul from one
devil to another . . .

Kev