Error message

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in linkedin_profile_user_load() (line 107 of /var/www/sites/all/modules/linkedin/linkedin_profile/linkedin_profile.module).

Saatchi sacks Saatchi contender for Saatchi apology video.

 
 
 

Saatchi sacks Saatchi contender for Saatchi apology video.

Okay, so perhaps the headline is a bit of a fib, as Saatchi say Dan Castro broke the rules, it was just fun to say "Saatchi" as many times as possible in it.

In response to Saatchi & Saatchi’s setting of the brief “get as many followers on twitter as you can” Dan Castro set up The Saatchi Experiment and the twitter account @Saatchi_grads and "with a little design and carefully chosen words people began to assume I’m the official twitter feed." Sneaky Dan. Real sneaky. Dan has a point though, the measure of how popular a feed is, is not counted in friends now that automated spambots can get you as many as you want within a week.

Dan also posted this video yesterday, as the 'official' Saatchi alter ego, and called it "An Apology from Saatchi", where he explains the brief was a bit of a repeat from last years, as they were busy looking at angry kittens online.

What were the reactions, Dan?

Reactions so far - it's been pretty well received, actually. One person described me as a "cocky cockend who fails at being funny", whereas one of the grads said it "cheered up no end", which I'd say is about as mixed a reaction you can get! To be honest, positive or negative, any reaction is a really good thing for us - as Dave Trott mentioned in one of his latest blog posts "advertising doesn't have to be liked to work", which I find fascinating. Of course, the fact that the majority of responses have been positive is bonus for me! I've had calls to actually write a brief for the next stage (not from Saatchi's, of course) which I think I will do, but the real test will be whether any of the grads find it interesting enough to do.

Seems this just went a wee bit over the line, as someone at Saatchi suddenly discovered that Dan has broken the rules of the Scholarship Scheme by having "discussed some of the questions in the quiz”".. which got them sacked from Saatchi, but don't worry he's sacked in a good way:

As a result, I’m afraid we’re going to have to remove you from the application process for the Scholarship Scheme - but AS WE’VE FOUND YOUR APPROACH TO THE GRAD SCHEME INTERESTING IF YOU HAVE ANY GENUINE INTEREST IN WORKING HERE perhaps it’s worth you coming in and having a chat with someone here anyway?

Because advertising is all about bending the rules, just right, or with a certain panache.

Adland: 

Comments

Hi Dabitch. I'm afraid your article is not telling the truth. Saatchi_grads got "sacked" for talking about the questions in his post published just before publishing the video: http://thesaatchiexperiment.tumblr.com/post/3466845835/something-i-dont-...
I don't think the video was more "offensive" then the rest of his "thoughts". Although I do understand that "truth doesn't sell as well as lies".

Pop quiz: what does the first sentence of this post say? ;)

Wait, maciekbaron , did you even finish reading the post before you commented? It's okay, you can answer honestly - because this line:

.....someone at Saatchi suddenly discovered that Dan has broken the rules of the Scholarship Scheme by having "discussed some of the questions in the quiz”".

says exactly what you just said, doesn't it?

It's sad that he put that amount of work in and was sacked - I even believed he was the real thing!!! However hopefully this will open doors for him.

Kids these days, do they even read past the headline?

Clearly not.

@Saatchi_grads has published all of the questions to the Saatchi Grads Internship brief now. Seems he reckons he might as well, since he sacked for it anyway.

Saatchi's advertising Quiz Posted on February 28th, 2011 - in case y'all were curious as to what the quiz contained. I think Adland's ad trivia quiz was harder... :P

You're wrong again. He hasn't published all of the questions, just 8 of them (unless I can't see the rest of them) which according to what other people are saying is just 1/3rd. When it comes to reading the article, yes, I've read it, and you're clearly implying that posting the video somewhat crossed the line and thus got him "sacked": "Seems this just went a wee bit over the line, as someone at Saatchi suddenly discovered that Dan has broken the rules". Unless I don't understand what you're trying to say in that sentence - if that's the case, I do apologise.

Sorry mate, you can't change your argument and then count it twice. "I'm afraid your article is not telling the truth. Saatchi_grads got "sacked" for talking about the questions in his post published just before publishing the video" is what you said in your first comment, as if I hadn't mentioned that at all, which I do. I'm glad you've read all the way down to the middle now, lets see if you make it to the happy ending one of these days.

As for stating he had published all of the questions, sure, I'll give you that, wrong choice of word - clearly there was a lot more Saatchi Quizzing in this new post than the previously hints of what might be in the quiz here which apparently got him sacked according to everybody, so I said "all" comparing to "mystery hints that give no clue whatsoever unless you actually did the Quiz".

Fun to note, while Saatchi has this to show for their grads, BBH grads reunited a homeless guy with his daughter and grandchildren as their project. Viva la difference.

Add new comment

Top