GOOD CREATIONS/FUNNY REACTIONS.

adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo adteachings: Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career. But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times. The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety. By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.) Raising the Roof:Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, CanadaChief Creative Officer: Judy JohnCreative Directors: Judy John, Lisa GreenbergArt Director: Anthony ChelvanathanCopywriter: Steve PersicoPlanners: Brent Nelsen, Ian WestworthArt Buyer: Leila CoureyPhotographer: Frank HodelPrint Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim BurchielAccount Director: Natasha Dagenais NSW Police:Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Matt EastwoodArt Director: Adam RoseCopywriter: Ben O’BrienPhotography: Mat BakerRetouching: Dennis Monk Pedestrian Council of Australia:Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, AustraliaExecutive Creative Director: Dylan HarrisonCreative Director: Mark HarricksCopywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy LembergArt Director: Adam LedburyPhotographer: Ian ButterworthTypographer: Dom Bartolo

adteachings:

Ambitious creative people discover very quickly that it’s better to think in campaigns than in one-offs. The unselfish reason for this is that a campaign constitutes the torture test for your idea: If your idea runs out of gas after one or two executions, you know that the idea is not particularly strong. The more selfish reason for thinking in campaigns is that it gives you more shots at more awards, which is very good for the career.

But as you work to come up with your three campaign executions (as that is the typical number sought), make sure that you really can find three distinct ways of executing your core idea. In other words, do not do the same ad three times.

The three campaigns above illustrate this point perfectly. The first two, concerning pedestrian safety, involve very powerful core ideas. They have each, in their way, found a visual way to marry images of distracted music lovers with images of a horrible death. Both campaigns are beautifully shot, no question. But the executions within each campaign are not sufficiently different from each other to satisfy the criteria of a real advertising campaign. If you photograph an Asian woman with blood where her earphones used to be, what additional point are you making by photographing a Caucasian woman in an almost identical pose? If I see an iPod wire as a chalk circle around a man’s legs, what additional understanding do I glean from seeing the same device around his upper body? I observe that both campaigns came from the same agency, and I wonder why creative people of such obvious talent didn’t express their great core ideas with more variety.

By contrast, the final campaign (for Raising the Roof) most definitely is a campaign. Writer Steve Persico and art director Anthony Chelvanathan are the same team responsible for the amazing cardboard house I discussed yesterday. This Leo Burnett print campaign (from last year, I think) presented three very differentiated takes on the same core campaign idea. The glue holding all three ads together is the insight that we are more likely to see the value and potential in inanimate objects than in homeless youth. That is a killer insight, because very few of us can deny its truth. Now, if the team had produced three executions featuring discarded furniture, this would not have been a campaign; it would have been just three versions of the same very good one-off. However, with the raw potato and the withered houseplant, they have added richness and nuance to their message. We don’t write off a dying houseplant nearly as easily as we sometimes write off kids in trouble. In a raw potato, we see the dozens of marvelous things it could be; do we see those possibilities in homeless youth? And as for the chair, how many of us see the potential in people who’ve been literally dumped in the street? Three very different appeals, all extending from one strong central thought. That is a campaign. (And bonus points to the writer for the body copy and the courageously long headlines.)

Raising the Roof:
Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Toronto, Canada
Chief Creative Officer: Judy John
Creative Directors: Judy John, Lisa Greenberg
Art Director: Anthony Chelvanathan
Copywriter: Steve Persico
Planners: Brent Nelsen, Ian Westworth
Art Buyer: Leila Courey
Photographer: Frank Hodel
Print Producers: Gladys Bachand, Kim Burchiel
Account Director: Natasha Dagenais

NSW Police:
Advertising Agency: DDB Sydney, Australia
Executive Creative Director: Matt Eastwood
Art Director: Adam Rose
Copywriter: Ben O’Brien
Photography: Mat Baker
Retouching: Dennis Monk

Pedestrian Council of Australia:
Advertising Agency: DDB, Sydney, Australia
Executive Creative Director: Dylan Harrison
Creative Director: Mark Harricks
Copywriters: Alex Stainton, Guy Lemberg
Art Director: Adam Ledbury
Photographer: Ian Butterworth
Typographer: Dom Bartolo

Reblogged 12 months ago from adteachings 19 notes