Experts divided on Ikon TV ad as historic court case rumbles on
Television ads that sit at the heart of a historic court battle have been picked over by advertising experts as Ikon Communications continues to fight allegations it botched a marketing campaign for a client.
Four industry authorities were questioned in Sydney’s Supreme Court about the merits of TV ads for hair thinning brand Evolis, in addition to the wider integrated nature of the campaign.
One, Jane Caro, said Ikon’s creative approach – overseen by executive creative director Rob Martin Murphy – did not adequately explain the product while two others, John Grono and Colin Wilson-Brown, applauded the ads.
Any ad campaign is gamble, somewhat like betting on a horse race. You check all the form, assess the facts and make a decision to put the money down on your choice. And if it doesn’t come in, don’t expect to get your money back.
Sounds like a Gruen special.
Surely the client approved these ads including a legal teams sign off before they went live and have to take responsibility for doing so.
Missed the mark totally for message. Can see why the director was excited about the script though, no product to clutter the imagery.
Did the client approve the script?
Did the client approve the offline?
Did the client approve the online?
Did the client approve the campaign before it ran?
If yes, then how has this ended up in court?
Completely agree
Exactly. Any and all arguments are purely academic.
a creative columnist critiquing another creatives creative work. We know how that ‘s going to end ..
It promises hair revitalisation. Case closed.
I am a little suspicious that this is a PR stunt to drive attention to the product. Sure there are legal costs to consider here, but overall if this story is crafted well enough we could see it hit the main press. Could this be so?
Yeah yeah!
Competent clients create competent campaigns.
Just goes to show that the industry has no business or commercial acumen. Some dumbarse 2 yr grad (prob not even a degree in marketing) was handed the account and did their limited best. Out of touch management signed it off and sweat talked the client. Client trusts that the agency knows their job and is paying for that level of competency. FAIL. damn, right they should not pay for what wasn’t delivered or promised.
I don’t know about the legal implications, but the footage? the Ad?
My opinion, for what it may be worth.
A lot of sea, a lot of grass, a lot of sea, lot of hair blowing in a lot of wind, and a lot of sea. Good voice, but the whispering style is only OK if you don’t punctuate its already brief message with the crashing surf of yet another sea shot. I know all the jokes regarding the pack shot, but Hey! What about the pack shot? What about the Script?
Jane’s. Of the foliage growing back over the barren landscape. These people aren’t bald wanting to grow back hair. They just didn’t want to lose it. So that would alienate the intended audience. Plus it’s a truly naff idea. I watched the ad before reading the article. Perfectly clear. The original line would have made it better but it was still clear and compelling in its release form. I’m surprised Jane has been such a pedant about it. Disappointed actually.