Spot the difference, with Campaign Palace

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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’.

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.

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

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/

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.

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….

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.

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!

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

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…?

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.

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

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.