Opinion
- What's in a name?
  
  In this guest post, Moensie Rossier wonders about the power of names for brands and marketers.
  
  Brands have been having a bit of fun with names lately, not to mention a fair bit of success. Interbrand just named a headhunting firm Cloak & Dagger. And ‘Share a Coke’ showed how much power there is in a name.
  
  The Coke campaign effectively short-circuited the usual mechanics of communication. It undoubtedly stroked people’s egos. But, I believe, its success stems from the fact that it directly and automatically affected people’s behaviour, rather than doing so indirectly by shaping attitudes.
- Best ads from Super Bowl 2012
  
  The Super Bowl is all done and a team from North America won. But as well as some sort of sporting event, it’s the world’s biggest advertising showcase. See the best of them right here… and please tell us what you think.
- How to debunk media myths
  
  In this post, UWS’s Ullrich Ecker, John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky argue that cognitive science can help PRs form strategies in managing media misreporting.
  
  A growing cohort of commentators has bemoaned the descent of contemporary political “debate” into a largely fact-free zone.
- How about simply focusing on what consumers want?
  
  In this guest post, Peter Mountford argues that brands should think more about what is really going on for consumers
  
  Who here is hoping their favourite brand of toilet paper is going to be organizing a flash mob on their way home from work today?
- What the Optus web copyright victory means
  
  In this analysis first published on The Conversation, RMIT’s Marita Shelly examines the implications of Telstra’s defeat over the online rights to the AFL broadcast deal
  
  This week’s Federal Court ruling that Optus customers are able to view sporting matches minutes after they are streamed live without breaching copyright is a landmark decision that alters our understanding of copyright law, and has significant implications for the AFL’s broadcasting rights deal.
- Does Gina Rinehart’s bite of a chunk of Fairfax make her an oligarch?
  
  In an article that first appeared in The Conversation, Mark Rolfe wonders whether the mining magnate’s move could turn Fairfax into something resembling America’s Fox network.
  
  Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart has moved to increase her stake in Fairfax Media, owner of The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and a number of radio stations. Rinehart has already shown her desire to play a role in public life, campaigning against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s aborted mining tax. She has also demonstrated a willingness to make media investments to ensure her pro-business worldview is promulgated.
  
  What does this latest move by Rinehart mean?
- Gillard's Australia Day crisis
  
  PM Julia Gillard’s media adviser Tony Hodges has been forced to resign over the Australia Day tent embassy debacle.
  
  It came after it emerged he had revealed opposition leader Tony Abbott’s whereabouts, leading to both politicians being rescued by police in ugly scenes.
  
  Mumbrella editor Tim Burrowes and advertising practitioner Jane Caro debate the topic on Weekend Sunrise’s masters of Spin segment:
- The biggest cock-up I made in business
  
  In this guest post, Chris Savage urges agency staff to live the brand.
  
  I still shudder when I think about how incredibly stupid I was when I made the biggest stuff up of my career. And then, 18 years later, I did it again. Do not make this mistake with your clients. Ever.
- Hey Groupon. Thanks for fucking up email
  
  In this guest post, Daniel Monheit warns that group deal overload is devaluing email marketing
  
  Email marketing used to be fabulous. Back in the heady days of 2010, brands would work hard to build up well qualified databases, upon which they’d bestow carefully crafted correspondence filled with information, offers and incentives. The recipients, of course would be delighted: “Oh look! An email! From one of my favourite brands! And it’s 40 cents off at Woolies this week!”.
- The staggering sway of Harold Mitchell
  
  The Power Index today names Aegis Media chairman Harold Mitchell as the most powerful person in Melbourne. Andrew Crook profiles him.
  
  Harold Mitchell takes pride in dispensing with the niceties. When The Power Index visited his South Melbourne private office before Christmas, fresh remains were scattered all over the boardroom table.
- Share a Coke with… the moronic masses
  
  The most-read story on Mumbrella last year, with not far off 100,000 page views, was a fairly humdrum yarn about the launch of Coca-Cola’s name-on-a-bottle campaign.
  
  The headline, “Coca-Cola puts people’s names on bottles in ‘Share a Coke’ campaign”, though hated by any self-respecting sub-editor, was loved by Google. And in rushed what can be politely described as the public.
- Assumptions kill creativity
  
  In this guest post, Gual Barwell disagrees that the sales success of the Old Spice social media campaign was overstated.
  
  Yesterday’s post from Cathie McGinn suggested the Old Spice campaign failed to connect with consumers. Based on the facts and figures, I disagree.
  
  What Old Spice and Wieden + Kennedy has done and done phenomenally well is to create a franchise.
- The SMH's readers (are wrong) editor
  
  We are now about five months into the reign of Australia’s first readers’ editor. And I don’t think it is working.
  
  It struck me at the time of Judy Prisk’s appointment to the Sydney Morning Herald that the fact that her boss was editor-in-chief Peter Fray was not going to be ideal if she was going to be the independent voice of the reader.
- The emperor's new fragrance: Old Spice’s campaign failure
  
  In this guest post, Cathie McGinn slays a sacred cow of 21st century marketing – the highly awarded Old Spice campaign.
  
  One of the biggest myths of recent times (by which I mean a story of great heroism and triumph we’d all like to believe but deep down know to be untrue) is the Old Spice social media campaign. It’s been much lauded and awarded as an example of outstanding content, a creative and collaborative way of connecting with consumers and driving a record increase in sales.
- How reliable are radio ratings?
  
  In this guest posting, Jason ‘Jabba’ Davis wonders how accurate radio ratings can be, since the data is collated from handwritten diaries.
  
  So, the radio ratings season gets underway tomorrow. After a well-earned break, Australia’s commercial radio stations will renew their obsession with figures to see how many of us are listening. Are they winning or losing the ratings war?
  
  The much feared radio survey is the only way to measure the success or failure of a station’s playlist, talent, promotions or even good old Black Thunder crosses. With six-figure salaries riding on the make-or-break nature of ratings, just how accurate are Australia’s radio survey results?

Spot the difference, with Campaign Palace

Nice to see this breaking campaign from The Campaign Palace (courtesy of B&T)

Remind you of anything? the original has only had 12m views to date, so Dr Mumbo is sure noone will notice the similarities…

It’s a particularly impressive effect if you play both pieces at once.

July 31st, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Comments

Me
31 Jul 09
5:26 pm

Sure it might be the same concept, but The Campaign Palace / Target ad is a whole lot more interesting – visually at least. The second ad had me wanting to fast forward a few seconds in.

Zac Martin
31 Jul 09
7:08 pm

I wouldn’t mind if they’d done it better than the original but this is both stolen and shit.

A
31 Jul 09
9:59 pm

For that category and for someone like Target Australia, its a step in the right direction. A nice way to say they’ve got great range at great prices.

Brendon
1 Aug 09
9:02 am

I like it. So what if it’s the same visual technique? Not the first time in the world someone has shot an ad/TV show/movie with a technique used elsewhere.

At least they’re doing something kinda interesting and catches your attention compared with the shit churned out by DJs, Myer, Big W and K-Mart.

And I reckon the average punter (not us advertising wankers) will like it.

Julian Cole
1 Aug 09
11:39 am

I would say that it looks like the new Coldplay music video clip too. http://www.coldplay.com/videostrawberry.php

However, I have to agree with most people here, I do not mind it. From a sector that usually does quite boring work, congrats to Campaign Palace for doing something a little more creative!

!
1 Aug 09
4:19 pm

How proud they must be to do something so ignoble. Its a lovely spot – but imagine if Target ran their entire business like they do with this ad – ie copy everything. They would be in the shit. Its an example of people thinking you can build a brand on a nice image with no authenticity.

I like the ad, but it makes me like Target less.

Julian and a few others here are missing the point – its not if the ad is liked that is important – it’s whether this is good for business. I doubt this is.

Brendon
1 Aug 09
6:02 pm

I think you’re missing the point (!), having people like your ads goes a long way toward people liking your brand – particularly when you’re in the discount department store segment. And when was the last time you went to a Target? You do realise that the brand is copied from the US, a lot of the clothing lines are copied from (and made by) major labels and they sell cheaper Chinese knock-offs of a variety of homewares.

The thing that has set Target apart from Big W and K-Mart for a number of years now is not what they have in-store (although there is a marked difference to just 5 years ago), it’s their advertising. It’s not breakthrough creative but it’s likeable and all about the shopper. How is that bad for business?

Angus
2 Aug 09
6:43 pm

This shits me.

But it would. I’m in the segment, I guess, that would come across the original before seeing the copy. If there was a way to make it clear to me that they had been inspired by the original and perhaps (hopefully) used the person who created the original to make their campaign, I’d probably love it, but seeing it cold like this shits me.

Kate Kendall
3 Aug 09
3:30 pm

Tried to play both at once Tim, but don’t think our bandwidth can hack it.

I loved the ad – nice work by The Campaign Palace and yes, I feel the execution is better than the ‘original’.

Anon
3 Aug 09
3:38 pm

I prefer the original. It has a story to tell. As for Target, I miss the old ads. They were cheap and cheerful – everything a retail brand should be.

MJ
3 Aug 09
3:45 pm

Saw the ad last night and loved it…..waited to see which brand it was. Had not seen the original.
Once i saw it was Target, i was surprised and wondered how come they are doing such cool creative….now i know…
But i agree that majority of real world will love it and not have seen original

Darren
3 Aug 09
4:07 pm

I do like them both, but the original was made by some friends of mine, so I’m biased towards the second one. Much nicer animation too…
And – they are commercial directors working for hire. It would have been very easy to approach them about making the Target spot…

http://www.onewingfly.com/

John Grono
3 Aug 09
4:10 pm

The Target as is SO different – she walks left to right in that one. Doesn’t matter – still one of the most watchable ads on the goggle-box.

Anonymous
3 Aug 09
5:36 pm

Well, If we’re going to play this game, perhaps we should all have a look at where “Her Morning Elegance” was originally “inspired” from:

http://vids.myspace.com/index......oID=568002
(4 minute mark)

I don’t think anyone would doubt that Target wasn’t inspired by the beautiful clip, and I don’t think they’ve denied it. But for most things, you’ll always find a list influences.

I think they’ve done great job developing it an making it their own. Much like, dare I say, “Her Morning Elegance” with the original clip by Mitchell Rose….

Adam Hunt
3 Aug 09
6:44 pm

When it comes to execution of ideas in advertising, just about everything has been done more often than a 10 year old at Neverland.

I agree with Brendon – I like this ad. It makes me smile. I once worked with Doug Watson, and he said: “the more they like you, the more they’re going to buy from you” and he’s dead right. Research companies extort millions from clients trying to hide this simple truth behind focus groups, pie charts & bizarre jargon that real people don’t speak – but it’s not rocket science.

And while I’m quoting others, John Mortimer (creator of Rumpole of The Bailey) once said: “If you can make the Jury smile, you’re home & hosed.”

He’s dead right too.

Anon
4 Aug 09
9:22 am

Three nights ago I saw one of the old Target ads with the crappy little logos running around and thought it was about time Target did something new. So well done Target for taking a bold leap.

And the ad is nice. It will work very well for the brand.

However, no kudos for the Palace. It’s OK to be inspired by, and even ‘borrow’, a visual style or technique. It’s not OK to just make the exactly the same thing. Almost frame for frame. We can all imagine the creative team drooling over this video clip and playing to the client and to their director, saying “we want that”, while at the same time thinking to themselves, “Clear the shelf. We getting some awards on this one.”

No. You are not. Awards are given out for original executions. And you can’t even possibly imagine getting away with a blatant rip-off these days. There’s a little thing called the internet that has seen everything that has ever been done.

You could have saved your reputation (and award hopes) if you’d used that so-called creative grey matter you get paid for and thought of a way the brand could “own” this technique. Construct a new scenario for it. Or, at the very least, use the same crew, and maybe the same musician and do a press release about how Target recognises and embraces the talents of artists. Make it part of the strategy.

Come on, guys. We get paid to think. So… think!

mumbrella
4 Aug 09
10:34 am

If anyone is wondering why some posts have been removed, it’s because they were all from the same IP address, anonymous and personally abusive about an individual.

The person who posted them is still welcome to contribute if they want to do so in a less personal way, but your IP address will now take those comments to a pre-moderation queue. If that also affects colleagues from your agency at the same address, then my apologies.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

Anonymous
4 Aug 09
4:31 pm

Geez…. it must be a slow news week in the ad world. Congrats Target for producing a bit of feel good fun. Fashion fun, nothing more. I suspect that is exactly what its intended purpose was all along…?

gorgan
4 Aug 09
5:34 pm

This isn’t exactly a new technique. Neither of them is really that original (even though someone deemed the second one ‘creative’ enough to make the Saatchi’s New Directors’ Showcase, but that’s another issue altogether, time to re-hash stop-motion anyone???). And when you consider that 11.99m of the 12m that viewed the second one were just ad wankers like us, i think it’s fair game.

Smithee
6 Aug 09
1:46 pm

Ad agencies are in the business of debasing culture and thieving memes, so this to me just looks like business as usual.

Sully
7 Aug 09
2:38 pm

Most of the ideas we see are derivative.

The key word is derivative rather than plagiarize. It is OK to take inspiration from another creative idea and apply it in a new way. Ref the Olympus Pen camera ad featuring a familiar stop motion technique and idea.

Where brands get the flack is when they copy the idea directly. Ref Freeview.

In todays connected world it is naive to assume that it won’t be spotted. This one is borderline, but as noted, the average viewer won’t be aware and already it seems to have a good reaction.