Tis the season when creatives jump on the election bandwagon to make whatever point they want to make about the election which usually doesn't go beyond "be sure to vote."
Give Jordan Rich credit for at least muddling the simplicity of "be sure to vote," by coming up with a scheme favoring technology and social media over substance.
Jordan believes Florida is the most important state in the 2012 election. Because it was the most important state in the 2000 election. How these are related is beyond me, but whatevs.
Apparently, too, Jordan doesn't actually care about the outcome of the election because he is allowing his vote to be influenced, via a hashtag.
Yes. A hashtag will decide who he should vote for.
What this has to do with Florida is beyond me. What this has to do with the fact that there are in fact nine swing states this year is beyond me. What this has to do beyond a clever hashtag to get some Floridian creatives' name out there is also beyond me.
Even more important, when someone is willing to literally put their decision to vote in the hands of others, it's kind of making a mockery of such things as The Voting Right Act and the current multi state debate about whether people should be required to have a valid I.D. to vote in the first place.
Point is, if you're gonna jump on the election bandwagon, why not do something timely and compelling?
But hey, it's your vote. Throw it away if you want. Hashtags are way cool.
Here's one: #executionoveridea
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
Well said. Hopefully other ad students will understand you need some meat on an idea when you try to go for self-promo crap.
- reply
PermalinkJust out of curiosity where do you work? As someone whose won several lions, I think this is brilliant.
- reply
PermalinkJust out of curiosity, why do you think this is brilliant? If we stick to just talking about the work at hand, instead of comparing resumés, we might learn something about the work.
Or you could just list the lions that you won. Not that this would make work bulletproof. Kia won a lion. Luxor won a lion. Where do you work? You don't even have an account here, it seems. Who are you? See why this is a bad line of questioning? It leaves us not talking about the work.
- reply
PermalinkHere's why I agree with the write up and why I think it's a flop:
1) The election year borrowed interest is a yawn and this lacks originality and brilliance to make it interesting.
2) Originality. Giving away a vote was done before, and this isn't a better or improved version of it. (reference: http://www.giveyourvote.org/)
3) Strategy behind the idea: To me, this doesn't help to sell the skills of this kid. Or maybe there aren't more skills to offer.
If you like it so much, maybe you might want to explain why you think it's great.
- reply
PermalinkWe 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.
- reply
PermalinkSo, first off, I think the question of where someone has worked or what they've achieved is important. The reason being it's relevant as to whether your opinion comes from a place of bitterness for not being able to do the kind of work you'd like and having to kill other's work instead. I feel like this is a lot of where this is coming from in this place, but moving on.
I think any campaign that brings the issues you address Kidsleepy into question is important and relevant by definition. You're citing these reasons and reasons to not like the campaign, when it seems that they'd be reasons to like it and the questions it provokes, the fact that it leads to the conversation you're engaging in.
The campaign gives anyone a piece of a very important US vote, is that ok? I don't know for sure. But it's definitely provocative. Which is what advertising should be doing, rather than selling a simplistic single minded point.
He's creating discussions, provoking thought, and questioning what a vote is and how voter laws are affected by technology. You've basically said so yourself. Why trash him for it?
- reply
PermalinkI 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.
- reply
PermalinkI find it interesting you feel provocation, discussion, and controversy to be unsubstantial as end goals. Many monks who've set themselves on fire would likely disagree with you.
- reply
PermalinkMonks setting themselves on fire are protesting religious oppression and an occupation by a foreign nation. In advertising, attention for attentions sake, is nothing but a cheap trick. Put a man upside down just to make the ad "stand out" from others in the same newspaper sells nothing, do it to show that you sell a glue that sticks him to the ceiling and you sold a product. There's the trick.
So while I think the execution here on voteforjordanrich.com is nicely layouted around the free embeddable twitter-widgets one can get from twitter.com, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this other than a kid is giving away his democratic rights to the popular opinion voiced in a hashtag.
- reply
PermalinkDo 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?
- reply
PermalinkI only now just realized that "vote for Jordan" is a pun. I'm the effing queen of horrendous puns, and I didn't spot that one. Yikes.
- reply
PermalinkI just went to Agency Spy and even they called this idea ridiculous.
Yeah agency spy is all about shit heads hating stuff, but this article to me just says gimmicks arne't enough. What's wrong with that.
"In response to Ms. Intention/Kidsleepy." You won so many awards in your career-- why not include youre name if you're so fucking brilliant?
- reply
PermalinkYou "whose" won so many lions can't have won them for copywriting.
- reply
Permalink