Vote for Jordan Rich, and end democracy.

We spend time writing these stories with a specific point in mind, and back them up with facts and links to go with them. In this case, the facts in question are the actual issues going on in the election-- you know--real problems. Stuff like Voter I.D. laws, and The Voting Rights Act. Both of which are being threatened or challenged. How much more interesting if a creative would have actually attempted to solve actual issues rather than create some vapid self-promotion that when you actually spend time with it, you realize it doesn't mean much.

But rather than leave the usual troll bait like "your opinion doesn't count because you haven't won X" or "your opinion doesn't count because you don't work at X," or "where do YOU work anyway," how about you try something different.

If you disagree, tell us why. if you think the work is brilliant, tell us why.

I am not questioning how voter laws are being affected by technology. I.D's aren't technology. I am questioning a. why we as creatives, continuously jump on the same bandwagons, like elections. And then I question why, when there are so many election themed ads and promotions out there, we aren't making smarter ones. I am also not trashing anyone. I am saying the ad isn't as strong as it seems, when you get past the surface. And by some of these comments, it seems I'm not the only one.

I have to disagree with your notion that adverts should solely be provocative rather than "selling a simplistic single minded point."

The whole purpose of an ad, is to sell something. And the better you sell it, the simpler the idea is. Not simplistic. But simple. This is advertising 101. This is Hey Whipple Squeeze This, and this is still relevant, despite the fact it is 2012. The goal of advertising is to sell. I know we get caught up in "engagement" and "talking," and whatnot, and perhaps with a self-promotional piece, that makes sense. but at the end of the day our job is to sell something, with an engaging insight.

Shock value, provocativeness, humor, sadness, irony, dead-pan, slapstick, controversial...those are are the ways in which one chooses to sell the idea.
That is tone. That isn't an idea.

Otherwise there would be no need for strategic insight, no need for a USP, no need to brainstorm, and no need to show more than one idea, let alone write a brief.

The goal is to sell something in a creative way. The goal is not to "become famous, " or "to be talked about." If it were, then all the agencies that position themselves as famous suppliers, would retain all their business. But they don't. Because my talking about Cornflakes, or feeling good about the Kellogs brand, doesn't move product.

I will say this one more time: I am not writing from the standpoint of a bitter creative director. And neither, for that matter is Dabitch or any of the other contributors to this site, of which there are more than a few.

We are writing from the standpoint of people with strong points of view. If you don't like them, great. If you don't agree, fantastic. We don't want sheep on this site because they are as boring as the people who seem fit to launch personal attacks at us and question our abilities, or talents.

Frankly we're getting tired of it. A lot of people in advertising seem to forget they are making ads for people. And those people are a) not just those who work in advertising, b) are most likely an actual audience that doesn't work in advertising and has never won awards c) do not care about awards and d) most likely do not care about advertising.

It's important to remember that ultimately even if you disagree with our position and fully believe controversy is the end game, and even if you give a shit about engagement and being famous or being talked about, your audience is still those people out there, and the people right here. We are the audience as much as the critics. And we critique out of our love of advertising. Not hatred. We critique out of frustration because across the board advertising needs to be elevated. Which makes us hard on ads as much as the work we create. And more often than not, unless the ad really sucks and is beyond hope from our POV, we offer other ways in and suggestions that would make it better next time.

We're not a regurgitate the PR release kind of place, and we don't mince words. Mostly because we're busy and cut to the chase, but also we assume everyone is grown up enough to understand the above.

Do you really believe generating controversy for self-promotion on advertising sites is akin to a monk's self-immolation?

Provocation, discussion, controversy are fine end goals, if you're a monk or an artist. Monk's don't work in advertising. And as much as we believe we are creating art, we are only creating art for commerce's sake. I.E. to sell shit with a smart idea that gets people talking about how smart the idea is and hopefully, buying the product, or buying into the idea.

I agree about getting talked about. Not as an end goal, but as a by-product. Case in point: You now have four people on a site who are talking about this idea. One is defending it as brilliant, but hasn't quite articulated why, beyond the controversy/generating conversation argument.

While the other three are discussing the ad as follows: "we don't get it," and "why did you bother when there are so many other real issues during this election," and "this idea has been done before, a la Give Your Vote.org " and last but not least: "in an election year, election-themed ads are a dime a dozen, so yours had better be amazing to stand out from the clutter. and as well-designed as this is, it's also forgettable, due to the previous discussions."

Now, I ask you: Is this the type of discussion you think the creator had envisioned?