Panasonic Gulla-bility. Day two

Who gives a shit about the ad agency – does Panasonic really think this is a success? I am guessing that people aren’t going to go back and look at the first days of pranks unless they go viral, and at this point the Guns, Gas and Gulla video has less than 800 hits on Youtube. Subtract the number of hits from the ad agency and their friends, Panasonic execs and people on the Mumbrella site who have read these posts, and you’ve probably got 200 hits max. That might equate to one sale. Maybe. Wow – money well spent guys. How much would this cost I wonder?

You know what the silly thing is (and is likely a secondary point of mUm’s) – this campaign would work just as well if they came out and said it was dramatised. Just like professional wrestling – yeah, they admitted it was all scripted, didn’t stop rabid fans watching though, did it?

A wizard did it.

Whatever. Please tell me you aren’t going to rip this to shreds every day for the next 26 days. Get over it already. Point taken.

Hi Tim,

I hear you on this and understand the appeal to point out the many ways this campaign is flawed. It does indeed appear that there are quite a few issues and I, like JHG, wonder what the return on investment will be for Panasonic.

However, to be fair to The Campaign Palace and Panasonic, and adding my insight from working agency side, it is sometimes difficult to understand all the machinations that go into making a campaign. From initial concept to delivery, various approvals and tweaks can water something down and alter a good idea.

In fairness, despite the flaws, I believe there was probably a very good idea at the heart of this campaign.

I personally believe as an industry and you personally, as one of the leading commentators on our industry, would be better served letting the campaign sit now. The flaws have been highlighted and I think there is little more to be gained providing daily updates. I wonder if there would be more positive outcomes if as an industry we came back at the end and reviewed the campaign as a whole, perhaps inviting comment from Panasonic and The Campaign Palace? The public will have given their opinion then on the success of the campaign and we will all be better in a better position to weigh the worth of it.

My fear is that lambasting of this type builds a level of fear in the industry that will result in an unwillingness to try anything that hasn’t been tried and tested 50 times before. The result of that is 30 second TVCs.

Full disclosure – I do not represent Panasonic or Campaign Palace, nor believe I know anyone involved in the campaign. I do have a very vested interest in clients trying new stuff and not doing 30 second TVCs. The above is only my opinion, not that of my employer Edelman either.

@ Matthew Gain why would you say you have a vested interest in a client NOT doing 30 second TVCs? What’s wrong with them where relevant, as part of a broader media mix?

I’d make the point that it’s this “anything but a TVC” idea that results in heaps of marketing dribble like this Panasonic thing getting made in the first place.

What happened to being media agnostic? I hope this stated self-interest is visible to the clients you advise.

Sure let’s try new stuff, but not at the expense of what’s been proven to work for a long time.

Hi Rob,

I didn’t make it clear perhaps.

People do not pay me to make 30 second TVCs. There are much better people who do that. I am not saying they have no value, my opinion is quite the contrary in fact I believe they definitely have their place in the mix. It is just I have a vested interest in marketing dollars being spent outside of TVCs.

Make sense?

my god, for the first time ever i agree with all the comments above

(except Debbie Downer who thinks all audiences have the tastes of teenage mid-West hicks)

Maybe it’s a good thing that the media is taking an ad agency to task for trying to deceive the media. That way we’ll get fewer of these wannabe earned/social media stunts that ironically constitute complete PR fails.

Please keep going Mumbrella. Don’t stop. I find the Dr Mumbo series way more entertaining than Gulla’s acting …opps I mean pranks. The inconsistencies that you highlight are actually really interesting and just show what a farce the campaign is. I thought that with the first prank – with all the lights and noise outside the bedroom window while they are getting the gas into the bedroom – no way would anyone sleep through that. At least this will make the 28 day campaign tolerable – about time an agency is taken to task for telling porkies.

I agree with matthew…who knows how much this was watered down, and really all the bile that’s being spewed by people regarding it is just going to contribute to more pathetic and lifeless ideas in Aussie advertising.

DR MUMBO WHEN WILL YOU UNMASK YOURSELF??
I’m sick of all the anonymous negativity on this section of the site.

@ Matthew Gain I understand what you’re saying but I’m always suspicious of people who only have hammers – every problem ends up being a nail. Non-standard and new ideas are great,

I think we’ve just found with this one it’s not only a shite idea (who really cares to see this poor chump be humiliated for 28 days) but they’ve done an extra bad job of setting it up and they’ve been called on it.

Lets keep experimenting, but lets also have some perspective on the ability of this “engagement” crap to cut-through, even when done really well.

Campaign Palace’s next move should be to ‘kidnap’ their stooge, lock him in a box and have him delivered to Mumbrella HQ… with a bottle of champagne and a thank you note.

Interesting (and constructive) discussion on this, thanks Matthew and Tim. I’m actually finding myself agreeing with both of your positions!

While I agree with Tim on the fatal flaw of this campaign appearing to be a lack of authenticity – something which wouldn’t diminish the idea or campaign if it were to be disclosed and indeed promoted that it is set up – I also find myself wondering if this will now result in clients shying away from exploring branded content?

Completely support Matthew in arguing that we now let this campaign play out. And his assertion that we need to value creative communications outside of the 30 second TVC safety-net, is one that more and more brands are understanding and implementing (even safe as houses brands are looking at this). It is also something trad ad agencies are starting to realise, and the point at which advertising and PR is starting to converge.

I guess what is important – and I think has been clearly communicated via Tim’s coverage – is that agencies and brands need to be authentic and transparent in their campaigns and communications. Rolling out branded entertainment/content with clear story lines and paid talent? Admit it; present it is branded content. The days of women finding mystery jackets and posting videos are (hopefully) long gone. Time to embrace to the idea of brands owning entertaining content outside of the media gatekeepers…

And my disclaimer: These views are mine, and not necessarily those of my employer Text 100, my mother or my lover 😉

I’m with you ‘Dont Stop’. This is fun.
For me the real issue is that it’s only achieved 800 hits. I’ve run failed consumer promotions in the past that have only achieved 800 entries. But at least I knew I’d made 800 sales.
With all the hype around social media, agencies and their clients need to remember we’re accountable for sales. And that means our priority must be on reach. The time, energy and funds poured into self indulgent stunts like this are wasteful, ineffective, and diminish our professional credibility.

Dr Mumbo, is this humiliation one of the stunts being pulled? That would be meta.

Whoa. I dont think i would have noticed all of the bloopers you pointed out if i was watching as joe blow consumer.

I do hate staged “out of the box” ideas.

David Thomason – don’t you know YouTube views are worth x1000 views on TV … so this video alone has delivered the same reach and effectiveness as a TV show that rates 800,000 people.

But of course we know NO ONE WATCHES TV anymore. So it’s even better than that not at all anecdotal comparison.

Or are you one of those heritage media people who just doesn’t understand the completely sane and rational new economics of advertising?

@karalee I’d ask the question – why would a corporate brand get into the business of branded content? I’d prefer my Panasonic/Kelloggs/Unilever/Reckitts etc to just focus on delivering the various products they make to me at the best possible price.

Why do they have to try to entertain me? I’ve got plenty of other avenues for entertainment, they don’t need to fill any void in my life with cynical corporate crap that’s been lawyered to within an inch of it’s life.

Leave the content to the experts (that is, none of the idiots uploading crap on YouTube), fund it’s creation with ad dollars, and sell me a Panasonic TV to watch it on. Oh look, we’re back where we started with soap operas sponsored by the FMCG companies decades ago that led to the industry as it largely still exists.

Makes me think – why don’t some of these big spenders actually make entertaining ads, rather than thinly disguised shite “branded content” exercises? There’s still a lot of leverage in a brilliant ad, that doesn’t pretend to be anything but an ad. And the better it is, the more likely it’ll go viral all by itself, bonus!

If Dr Mumbo stopped now the rest of the series would not get any attention.

I think it may be more prudent for Campaign Palace to pay Mumbrella to do a full 28-day expose on the campaign, therefore increasing its traffic and cut through.

If you’re going to make a bad campaign, make it so bad, so universally criticized, that it actually delivers.

Back inside the box – people hate hypocrits. If the client and Campaign Monitor come forward and say that the campaign is staged, that’d probably be the end of things.

Otherwise, regardless of whether Mumbrella stops or not, it doesn’t take a Mumbrella to tear the campaign apart. Next week there could be a couple of websites dedicated to pointing out all the flaws and inaccuracies. These could be run by individuals anywhere in the world (or competitors of the ad agency).

This is the social media era. Authenticity and trust are no longer ‘nice to haves’. Don’t fake people out, don’t lie to them and definitely do not tell them they are stupid.

Please keep the daily updates, I think October will fly past knowing each day we have an update.

Still waiting for the backlash against narrow so-called ‘engagement’ tactics to begin.

You have a mass product, you need mass exposure.

I know the horse has been flogged, but looking back over a past video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9-XlqisxhE&

it looks like there’s no tree in his front yard. So the last shot of him as the car speeds away would have left the camera entirely in the open.

I love that TCP will be Continuity Checking the f*&k out of the rest of the videos as a result of this thread.

In WW1 many English pilots used to hate shooting down German pilots because they knew they were essentially just guys like them who loved flying. I’m sure the Campaign Palace are guys like us who love advertising. Call off the kill Tim.

Am I too late to say this is dull, candid-camera webisode drudge?

Crap campaign aside, this campaign also encourages abuse and bullying – these ‘pranks’ also appear dangerous!

Sir.

I very rarely visit the car crash that is the Campaign Brief Blog anymore because the vitriol and bile makes me feel a little dirty.

I used to regard mumbrella as a safe refuge where one could expect some constructive criticism and people not hiding behind “anonymous”. Having come from abroad I was pretty shocked to see just how scathing and toxic the industry blogs were when I arrived.

I looked for cultural reasons like the Tall Poppy Syndrome, or some kind of colonial inferiority complex that made us think we need to be hypercritical of ourselves to meet global standards, but I don’t think we can hide behind that.

It needs to stop. As an industry we all need to take responsibility for our words and actions. We are all professionals. We should behave professionally and project an image to be proud of.

What you put energy into grows.

If as an industry we applaud people for trying (and sometimes, even often, failing) then our industry will keep evolving, growing and succeeding locally and on the world stage. Part of the reason why Australians and New Zealanders have achieved well internationally over the years was that they weren’t shackled by the fear and research that paralyses most global accounts and makes the work “safe”.

If we keep putting energy into attacking anything or anyone that tries anything new, then nothing will grow, and our work will become safe too. No creative will want to stick their necks out. And clients certainly won’t want to buy any work that exposes them to attack by their peers on the industry blogs. We’ll stagnate. Some would argue we already are.

Journalism should be objective and considered. Blog posts should be constructive and measured. That filter should be run over everything.

This News of the World/Sun/ Tabloid style approach to industry blogs isn’t helping anyone, and you will eventually eat yourself in the long run. Look what happened to NOTW.

I have no personal connection to this Panasonic campaign, in fact I haven’t even clicked on any of the links yet. Nor have I bothered to drill down into the various arguments. Hovering over it as an observer, it just makes me feel embarrassed. For someone to be so petty and vindictive as to personally waste your energy attacking some work daily for 28 days (minute by minute, second by second, shot by shot) is pathetic and childish.

Regards

Jake

Peter Rush – you were in WWII and that’s how you know that?

Wow.

DICKO
WWI you gronk. If you’re not going to pay attention or I swear, I’ll, I’ll… Shit! My rat trap just went off in the ceiling! Honest. Gotta go.

WWI you gronk. If you’re not going to pay attention I swear, I’ll, I’ll… Shit! My rat trap just went off in the ceiling! Honest. Gotta go.

Jake,
It’s called “honesty”
I call a spade a spade. Or in this case, a dull, contrived, candid-camera campaign with no perceptible merit.
Do feel free to offer a counter-view as to why it’s so great.
I’ll be just here with my bag of popcorn.

Dear Ad Grunt.
If you read my post, I’m not talking about this campaign, I’m talking about commentary on the industry as a whole.

I’m fine with calling a spade a spade. Just do it once, have the courage to put your name to your opinion and move on. Don’t keep anonymously hitting people over the head with said spade.

And speaking of calling a spade a spade, your twitter post seems to position you as “Acerbic comment from Adland.” you seem to be living up to your name well (If Ad Grunt is indeed the name on your passport). It’s pretty easy (and not that clever) to have an opinion if you’ve decided to be permanently angry about advertising, as your name suggests. If that is not your twitter post (I apologise) and you’re just a generic adgrunt (definition:” ad worker, who may or may not be in a perpetual state of disgruntled”.) then you should consider changing professions and doing something you enjoy for a living. Unless of course you enjoy being angry?

Jake:
1. Why shouldn’t I use a consistent alter-ego? Like, um, you do. Or don’t. So many dull Jakes in this world it’s hard to keep up. It also keeps the eye on the ball, not the man, etc. If anyone knew I was Harold Holt, it would get very messy.

2. Don’t admit to cyber-stalking someone else’s satirical alter-ego in public. It makes you look like a feckless wannabe.

3. Don’t try and dissect what I’m doing and who I might be because you devoid of your own ideas and charisma. That’s precisely why I use an alter-ego. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. If you want everyone to give cooing praise to every piece of bilge that’s produced then you’re delusional.

4. Maybe do something original yourself instead of telling others what they can’t do? You’ll notice I also give praise where I feel it’s due. Do feel free to use Google to educate yourself on this point.

5. If you’re posting in an article’s comments, then at least have the common decency and intellect to add something to the debate about that ad campaign at hand – add a counter-view showing your understanding and insight, instead of whining and bitching on like some clueless dolt.

Dear Adgrunt.

Actually Jake is my real name. I’m not Batman. I don’t need to hide behind an alter-ego like some superhero. I’m not saving the world. I just write ads. And want to be proud to come to work everyday, not working in a negative industry. I’m not going to add any more fuel to your fire or give you any more airtime. I’ll just note that you haven’t said anything positive at all. What you put energy into grows. And I’ve wasted quite enough energy on you, my masked friend.

Have a nice day now.

Hang on. You mean everything you see in advertising isn’t actually true?

The Ponds Institute isn’t real?
Did Mark Ecko not really tag Airforce One?
Did ducks not really start surfing after eating Wonder Performance Bread?
Did Ronaldinho not really hit the goalposts over and over again with his golden boots?
Is there no such thing as the Lynx Effect?
Does Isaiah Mustafa even use Old Spice?
Does BankWest really rely on talking animals in its research groups?
Is Hahn Super Dry not actually brewed in a factory with Knight Rider music?
Or Tui in one peopled by bikini-clad babes?
Was Tupperware not really invented by the Bud Light Institute?
Do tongues not really detach themselves from people’s mouths and go across the road to grab a beer?
Does the most interesting man in the world actually drink Dos Equis?
Does Cristiano Ronaldo use Castrol Motor Oil to take him to “hot places, cold places”?
Is Rob the Dentist really a dentist, and does he use Oral B?
Is Rita really an ETA eater?
Was Ricky Ponting really Tired? Stressed? Before feeling better on Swisse?
Does ANZ Security actually involve an eagle?
Does the man who drives the snowmobile really drive to it in a VW?

My world has come crashing down. How can I ever believe in anything again?

Jake, my earnest little friend.

I had no doubt that’s your name. If you only give your first name and no other reference, then you’re effectively anonymous. So you’re as much the Masked Jake as I am the Masked AdGrunt. You do get that, yes? And you’re still a stalker.

Fuel? Airtime? You’re not Alan Jones, son. You’re a slightly misguided twerp commenting on a blog. As am I responding to you, I guess.

So why don’t you have something positive to say about this campaign? Why don’t you take the lead here in making the change you wish for? Is it because it’s bilge or you actually have nothing meaningful to say?

I want to be proud about marketing excellence every day as well, hence why I decry poor work that makes me sad and disappointed. It would appear I’m not alone either.

You apparently haven’t done your research on my comments, which is a disappointing sign. Highlighting the bad without looking for the good. You should also look up acerbic as well – it doesn’t mean angry, dear.

Now go and waste energy on being a better whatever-it-is you-do. Trolling, it would appear.

Is the Lynx effect not real? Comedy gold. Loving your post, dk!

dk misses the not-so-subtle difference between the effective use in (some at least) your examples use of humour, irony, surrealism or hyperbole… and a contrived, dull scenario skit, smeared very thinly across 28 days of “viral meeja”

My main issue with this ad is that it’s not really funny, and the product message is lost.

I’m all for doing things differently – and I understand good concepts can get watered down through the approval process – and, coming from client side – the reverse is also true – agencies force crap ideas onto clients insisting the ads will ‘win awards’, ‘generate huge WOM’, or my personal favorite, generate huge additional value because they ‘go viral, or picked up in the press’.

I am completely ashamed of the current ad I worked on, for all the reasons above – even better was the agency releasing an unapproved 45 second version of a 30 second spot.

Hey AdGrunt, don’t lecture me on the effective use of humour or irony. I’ve got a fair idea about that kind of thing. Actually, you seem to be missing the not-so-subtle difference between authenticity and quality.

The issue people had with this campaign initially was that it was all fake. My point was that there have been many fake campaigns in the history of advertising, even viral content pieces like the Mark Ecko or Ronaldinho or Ducks ones I mentioned.

Now, whether it’s any good or not is a different (though related) question. That’s a legitimate subject for discussion. Perhaps (as you seem to be suggesting), the lack of authenticity impacts on the quality of the piece.

Fine. The usual “it’s dull”, “it’s been done”, “next” comments would suffice to make that point. But crucifying Panasonic (or anyone else) for lacking authenticity, when the history of advertising is littered with fakes, seems a bit mean-spirited, don’t you think?

(And in the interests of full disclosure, I own a Panasonic plasma and it’s very nice, especially to watch football on.)

dk, my friend.

Not lecturing, merely mocking your poor choice of comparison as it shows you don’t quite get where this is falling over.

I’m not missing the difference between authenticity and quality. I’d draw a big fucking line linking them.

Ecko’s video was so slick, so well executed and the idea in itself so original and audacious, you could barely believe it could be a hoax even when told. The same for the others you cite.

On the other hand… this campaign lacks quality and authenticity. It takes a lot of effort and money to make things look un-contrived. Maybe, just maybe, if they’d spent all their money on fewer, but better idea(s) and execution(s), this may have come off.

AdGrunt is a douche. Fact.