Andy Fackrell's YoungGuns Chairman Report

YoungGuns 2005 was a show dominated by film; not necessarily in the 30 second spot - although there were some beauties - but ideas that pushed into longer and unconventional formats. It is relevant, and hugely encouraging, that younger creatives are leading the way.

Two of the Gold Bullets given in Film, to the mesmerizing Sony 'Balls' cinema spot and Mini 'Counterfeit' are examples of brilliant communication that are not only fresh in ideas but fulfilled through execution. The Sony spot will no doubt pick up a few gongs over the next 12 months - it was nice that the jury here in Sydney got to see it first. It was less effective over shorter lengths but got full value in its longest format: a great choice of music, director and editor, it reached its maximum potential due to its craft.
'Counterfeit' similarly showed an amazing depth, yet instead of one simple idea well honed, it was a simple idea jam packed with parody. Both were clearly made by real talents who understand that an idea is but the first stage in the process.

Viral film had some highlights with interesting craft decisions you would hope for in young teams. But where were the young directors? The jury struggled to find any stand out piece of work to include in this category. The same applied in other craft categories, aside from the animated Duke Spirit music video. You need a pretty decent song to kick-start a video but this one had it all going on. And kept you there until the last note.

It must be said, that print and the student entries were a little disappointing this year; both seemed hamstrung by old formats when compared to the above. You hoped that wouldn't be the case at YoungGuns. There was the Gold winning Playstation Bus Shelter from Malaysia, a really interesting DM piece for The Republic of Singapore Navy, but the best idea was probably a 'Bottom Drawer' number from Norway, that hoped to counteract an annual Nazi Rally held in a small town there. Check that one out in the book.

Maybe print really is slipping, in terms of relevance, and not the place to learn the business of advertising anymore? Yet, look at how good it can be, when pulled off with confidence, as with the Student Entry of the Year for Hubba Bubba. Congratulations Menno Kluin; you had a great idea and you showed great taste and restraint in your art direction. Your execution carried it off. Interestingly, the same attributes apply to the Sony 'Balls' spot, easily voted by the whole jury as Best of Show; its creator Juan Cabral (Fallon London) honoured as the 2005 YoungGun of the Year.

So, in all, a really good show if not a little skewed to moving pictures. Some fantastic talent is out there, in all parts of the world, pushing advertising into new areas and blurring the lines between medias.

I'd like to thank the jury for the great effort and healthy, open debates that makes this show a little bit special. Also thank you YoungGuns for organizing a smooth event and their excellent hospitality; our livers, the weather and the Sculptures by the Sea all held up well that week.

Thank you Sydney.

(Andy Fackrell is co-executive creative director of 180 Amsterdam).

127 Comments

Anonymous said:

I don't think that Sony spot deserves best of the show. Some people are always pushing it to the front for the sake of 'new advertising'. This point of view will be another trouble like visual puns. If you didn't get the idea, it must be good, so vote it for best of the show. It's not fare. Let's accept the truth, there is no idea in it.

Anonymous said:

You're right "it's not fare". It's "fair".

Anonymous said:

Who are you to say what an idea is? Taking an anonymous stab at the work is real easy, back it up. I personally think the visuals back up the claim colour like no other. Its mesmerizing. What's not to get.

Anonymous said:

Totally agree. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Plenty of that, unfortunately, in this blog.

Anonymous said:

SONY SPLITS WITH FALLON AD AGENCYRelationship Lasted Only 5 MonthsNovember 28, 2005QwikFIND ID: AAR17CBy James B. Arndorfer and Beth Snyder BulikCHICAGO (AdAge.com) -- After a rocky relationship of only five months, Sony Electronics has split with ad agency Fallon Worldwide of Minneapolis.The move comes just as the crucial holiday season starts and Sony cranks up its biggest push in a decade with an estimated $200 million to support products including its Bravia and Wega TV sets, Walkman “Bean� music players, DVD camcorders and Vaio laptop computers.Sony wouldn’t comment on reasons behind the parting, although executives familiar with the situation said the electronics giant was unhappy with the agency’s work. Rob Buchner, chief marketing officer for Fallon, confirmed its “work with Sony wrapped up� last month, but declined to elaborate.http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=46910

Anonymous said:

Perfect timing!

lynchy said:

Ah, but not in the UK (Fallon London) or Asia -- at least not yet.

Anonymous said:

Wish I'd done it. It's fresher than any TV TVC for the past 30 years ( colour so real etc). It's also spectacular to watch . I'll bet the punters like it.

Anonymous said:

personally I think the sony ad is shite. fire some balls out of a cannon. if that's the best of young guns it's fallen a long way from crazy monkey a coupld of years ago.

Anonymous said:

I think it's a load of balls that a load of balls is considered an idea these days. It.is.not.an.idea.IMO.

Anonymous said:

Such narrow-minded definitions of what constitutes an idea. You can say that you don't like an idea, or that you think it's the wrong idea, but to say that it doesn't contain an idea simply because this sort of ad wasn't explicitly covered off in Hey Whipple-Squeeze This, or it's not following the formula of so many award-winning ads that preceeded it... I think that's wrong. With that criteria, Hate didn't have an 'idea' either, but it's a bloody good ad all the same. More than one way to skin a cat and all that...

Anonymous said:

There is an idea in it, but whether it a big enough idea is debatable. The first time I saw the ad I thought it was weak bordering on boring. I didn't find it memorable. It doesn't present me with a persuasive reason to fork out for a Sony. For this reason alone, IMO it scores a big fat zero.

Anonymous said:

people in tall glass offices would be very wise to shut the fuck up.

Anonymous said:

That's a dig isn't it.

Anonymous said:

fight. fight. fight.

Anonymous said:

I doubt that any of you who are dismissing the ad could get a job at Fallon London. And then you might say you don't want to given your view of the work, so I guess you're happy to keep doing your gay puns and formulas and you are happy to vent your insecurity and frustration out on here, knowing you'll never work in a world class agency. If you do manage to get a gig, let us all know.

Anonymous said:

Fool.

Anonymous said:

Hey mate, our think our first guy is right. You the fool if that's all you can come back with. Inthe meantime keep hacking away and don't be so hard on the balls.

Anonymous said:

Working at Fallon London? Why? For crafting that kind of stuff? Well, I'm not sure if they know how they did this shit. It's obvious.

Anonymous said:

All you juniors here who think a bunch of balls running down a street is an idea, stop sniffing the coke and work harder.

Anonymous said:

dunno what 'hate' is, but if you're talking about 'grrr' and you don't think it had an idea you should probably give up writing brochures and become a suit,at singos.

Anonymous said:

Excuse me! There is a huge difference between the 'hate' and that fucking 'balls' spot. Hate is a great work. What's the balls?

Anonymous said:

Maybe the balls should've all come together in the end to make a huge moving painting of van gogh's sunflowers.... and then perhaps a consumer saying: I've got a Sony TV and the colour is really good. ...have I left any of your boxes unticked.... ? happy now?

Anonymous said:

The Sony ad leaves me with the feeling of "so what". It's lazy shit masquerading as deep thinking.

Anonymous said:

The easiest way to judge anyone (person or brand) is by their behaviour.This is neither modern or meaningless. It's just one perspective on how to communicate. (Which happens to be extremely under-utilised in advertising circles.)Sony has proved itself to be original, innovative and creative by this piece of 'action'.The people who have written very narrow minded comments against this film have proven themselves to be just that.As the apparently universally popular Honda ad said - It's ok to hate something - so long as you yourself 'make something better...'

Anonymous said:

I'm very sure it's not lazy... It's just written without an ego... You can't pat yourself on the back for having written it and say "look how clever I am connecting the USP to the plot of this script." It would be alot easier to get a conventional ad bought by the client. When I first viewed it I thought - wow!

Anonymous said:

A bunch of bitches, that's what you are.

Anonymous said:

Really, the Honda and Sony ads are miles apart. It's ironic that some criticise other people's judgement yet fail to see this. That said, all this "debate" is good, and healthy. My 2 cents: An original idea is uncomfortable. A great idea is uncomfortable 'and' persuasive. When I watch the Sony ad I think, yeah, okay, pretty, but why should I buy a Sony? Why a Sony and not a Toshiba? The ad doesn't provide me with a compelling argument or reason to choose. Ahhh, but, say the makers of the ad, the visuals are compelling, therefore the ad is. And so the debate continues.

Anonymous said:

To the guy who provided us with the eloquent, impassioned defense of the sony ad, and even quoted some of the jingle from 'grrr'- you're wrong. And, you're a dick. Do you work at singos?

Anonymous said:

It's not about being conventional or not. There is no communication here. Nobody can say firing some balls out of a cannon for a 2 minutes and 30 sec tells something.

Anonymous said:

Here let me try. Shiny colourful balls in one hand, sony TV in the other. See, told you something. Bet you never thought of putting the two together, but then that's why you're still at Singo's.

Anonymous said:

We've been comparing 'Balls' with 'Grrr' and some are saying that 'Balls' doesn't have an idea. That balls is just a really impressive visual with a logo at the end. Can I suggest that Canne Grand Prix 2004 (i think) Sony Playstation is exactly the same. But wait. There is an 'idea' in Man Mountain. (if you didn't figure it out, PS2 was the first console that allowed you to play over the internet therefore allowing you to pit your skills against the entire world and seemingly the defending your title)I don't think I hang out with dim witted people, but the amount of people I had to explain that to (including advertising) showed that they liked it simply because it looked great.(side note, you may disagree that that isn't the concept, with the tag line 'fun anyone' "How does that relate to being best in the world? My interpretation.)Point being, looked good = Grand Prix. Same applies to Balls.Another example, does anybody care or notice that in the latest Dry commecial that all the appliances are cleaning objects fighting over the beer, thus the line 'Clean crisp taste'. No. Well not outside of the advertising community anyway. (I like this ad too.)Get 20 people to like your ad on a jury and who cares if it sells, has a concept or is relevant. These shows are for exhibition of creativity. Leave you old rules of advertising at the door and have some fun. Anyone?

Anonymous said:

Why a Sony and not a Toshiba? I'll tell you why. Because all Toshiba advertising is crap. And most Sony advertising is good. Forget USP's and all that stuff. If they like your Ad, they buy your product. As simple as that. I bet you the punters find this commercial as visually interesting, intriguing and yes, COLOURFUL as most of us. Let the cash registers speak for themselves, smart-asses.

Anonymous said:

What is it with haters? they are alwways there whenever something wins big. Always. Well lets see what else Balls wins, then you can argue with every jury in the world, every punter (Bravia has sold out in Europe by the way) who loves the ad. You guys are just jealous and upset because something you don't like has won something. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't do a job and doesn't mean it didn't deserve to win. Can you not just look at something for once and think "yeah, okay not my cup of tea but I can see why it's being praised" or can you only write XXXX ads?That's the nature of the beast. Did you make the rules for what an ad should have? Morons, truth is you will never be capable in your whole life of thinking up something big enough and different enough to get world wide praise. And that's why you are bitter and angry and spend time hating other peoples work. Glad there are only a few of you around.

Anonymous said:

I think PS2 and Honda have very powerful ideas. In my opinion, that balls commercial just like Nike's stickman campaign. No idea but just a visual trick. Stickman has won gold lions. So what? Who cares?

Anonymous said:

Whow! That balls spot makes the new rules of new advertising era? Let me watch it again. I think I've missed the point.

Anonymous said:

I'll be surprised if Balls wins anything else.

Anonymous said:

What is it with lovers? They are always there when something average wins big. Maybe it justifies their own natural inclination to be lazy. They figure it'll be easier to sell their quarter ideas in the future if more quarter ideas go ahead and win metal.

Anonymous said:

I won't be surprised if balls wins something else... Most of ad guys are crap as you've seen here in YoungGuns.

Anonymous said:

Hey, why we don't invite Fallon people here to explain strategy of the spot. So maybe it can be helpful for all of us to see if there is an idea or not. Is there anyone knows someone in Fallon?

Anonymous said:

Well i heard it just won gold at Epica. Not a huge show but still different judges and different audience. Start munchin on those words cowboys.

Anonymous said:

Lynchy will know someone that works at Fallon, maybe he can get the word form them, settle this once and for all.Lynchy?

Anonymous said:

Agree. Hey Lynchy, if you could call them it would be great!

Robert Kleman said:

PS2 advertising aside, most Sony commercials border on average. Yes maybe there are a few good ones, the Aussie stuff Geoff Darling shot years ago comes to mind, but generally it's all crap. Having worked on Sony regionally in Australasia for almost 4 years I'll tell you why. Sony are LIKE NO OTHER when it comes to being a client as well. One of the top marketing clients there actually once said to me "There are no degrees of winning in Sony, only degrees of losing." So imagine trying to present scripts to this guy knowing he is going to be crucified internally for anything that doesn't toe the company line. And mind you, his Japanese superiors also come with their own set of issues which this blog just isn't big enough for. Saatchi's held Sony in Europe out of London for a few years before Fallon won them. The Saatchi's partnership under Droga should have been a dream one right? Well history doesn't seem say so. Anyway kudos to Fallon for having the Balls to get this one through. And especially for only showing the product at the end. This is unheard of in Sony land. Knowing how Sony work and how they are as a client, Richard Flintham and his team deserve all the accolades coming.

Anonymous said:

Robert, many thanks for it. Personally I've got the picture. We all must accept that Fallon did a very well here. It's a bit like what Craig Davis and his team did with P&G. Maybe even harder than that I can imagine. But I'm sure at time if Craig Davis could get a best of the show at Cannes with that work nobody would accept it just because of the client type.

Anonymous said:

Robert, I have your stopwatch from when you were at Grey. It has your name on it in black texta. Do you want it back?

Anonymous said:

You can keep it as a memento, Brendan.

Anonymous said:

What bothers me is the fact that the jury unanimously voted it the best ad. This thread clearly indicates that this ad polarises people. Why were there no dissenting voices on the jury? Me smells something fishy.

Anonymous said:

I think youll find that juries are generally made up of people who have proven themselves already and are qualified to judge an ads merit. If you've never won shit (i.e. you really are 'anonymous')is your opinion valid?

Anonymous said:

There are a lot of self righteous people here. If you (God forbid) don't like the Sony ad you are either a hack, a smart arse, an award-less dick, unprogressive, a cowboy or/and a formula loving, Singos working, narrow minded, brochure writing gay bitch. What ever happened to difference of opinion? I think the comment above about the jury being unnanimous is a good one.

Anonymous said:

I'd like to know who wrote the following:"What is it with haters? they are alwways there whenever something wins big. Always. Well lets see what else Balls wins, then you can argue with every jury in the world, every punter (Bravia has sold out in Europe by the way) who loves the ad. You guys are just jealous and upset because something you don't like has won something. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't do a job and doesn't mean it didn't deserve to win. Can you not just look at something for once and think "yeah, okay not my cup of tea but I can see why it's being praised" or can you only write XXXX ads?That's the nature of the beast. Did you make the rules for what an ad should have? Morons, truth is you will never be capable in your whole life of thinking up something big enough and different enough to get world wide praise. And that's why you are bitter and angry and spend time hating other peoples work. Glad there are only a few of you around".Gee kid (I can tell your a kid by the way you write and spell), kinda heavy with the sweeping assumptions aren't ya? I think the world has room for a few people who disagree with you and don't like the ad. I'm awarded, young, have a book full of cutting edge stuff, and don't like the ad. This doesn't make me a moron, you moron.

Anonymous said:

Your not a speller either.

Anonymous said:

Shouldn't you be in kindy?

Anonymous said:

One of the things I find interesting about this whole debate is the assumption by some posters that an ad doesn't need to be persuasive to be effective. This is highly debatable, but even if we assume it doesn't, to my mind we are overlooking something. A lot of ads that don't bother to present an argument (as it were)fail in one (more) important respect. Regardless how memorable or visually interesting or fresh they are they often don't live live up to the reality of the situation. Sony LCD TVs are as it happens overpriced and comparatively not very good quality. The ad claims that Sony TVs offer 'colour like no other'. They don't. Consumers aren't stupid. Why do advertisers continue to treat them like they are?

Anonymous said:

Tricky thing, persuasion. Harvey Norman ads should be highly persuasive, then, as it still the top electronics distributor in Australia, isn't it? Do that make their ads good then? You are entitled to your opinion, fact is, those screens are selling out in Europe. Do you know why there is an expression "people of different persuasions". Because different things affect different people on different ways. Only one thing seems to persuade us all, and that is, beauty. And that spot, say what you may, has a beauty and a confidence to it that makes it persuasive. The rest is, personal opinion and a healthy dose of sour grapes for some of our bloggers. Despite all, great to see healthy debate developing, as this blog demonstrates.

Anonymous said:

Hey, until now I've collected many awards, including three cannes lions. And I think I can say something about that. Frankly, I hate that balls spot. I think it's ridiciulous. If you're saying ordinary people liked it and have runned to buy Sony TVs I can not belive that. Maybe the agency pushed it for showing it only in cinemas on the web etc, I don't know. 2,30" spot is can not be useful. Can not be effective. But can win something as you see.

Anonymous said:

No one cares what you think because you are bitter and an irrational hack. You miss the argument in your fit of jealousy. Your problem is not with the ad, it is with the Young Guns Jury-or any jury that votes for something you don't like. Can you see how retarded that makes you look? It is not the Agency's fault if they believe in something, they like something and they enter it it into awards and it wins. It could have also lost. The fact that they liked it, were proud of it enough to enter it- cannot be held against them. Any person proud of what they do would do that. And then the JURY, the whole jury decided to award it best of show-that's not the agency's fault-but their success. So how you can you have a dig at them? You wouldn't be if it didn't win, so why now? because you are a bitter shit and your problem is with the jury's decision. And that my friend is where you angst should be directed-not to an individual spot itself. That's unfair and ridiculous. Stop being a hater. Stop taking people down just because you don't like it. Stop trying to tailor arguments about effectiveness and sales and strategy and brand history to suit your hate and jealousy-it's obvious and pathetic. If you have a problem about what wins and why, then talk about how you may fix it, how the JURY could have picked a better winner in your eyes. Don't try and convince us that just because you have won 3 lions you are the expert. It just makes you look like another self centred formulaic tryhard. If you are so smart, tell us what you thought should have won form the entries and why. Tell us where you work and the work you have done and what gives you confidence that you are right. Tell us an ad you have made, go on and we'll all see if others like it, if others think it's great. As far as I'm concerend all the people dissing the ad are dillusional, you missed the entire reason why this post started and that's because someone thought it didn't deserve to win, which is fine, but don't confuse the issue, take it up with Andy Fackrell then. I doubt you would be brave enough.

Anonymous said:

Hi I was just reading this post and I think the funniest thing is the comment that the young kid wrote saying that he has a book full of "Cutting edge stuff" I don't know anyone who would hire someone who said themselves that they had a book full of cutting edge stuff. If you are young, little piece of advice. Be humble, there are too many wanna be rockstars as it is.

Anonymous said:

yeah that's funny.But I think the previous point, bar all the crap is true. It was the jury's vote, that's the prob. Unanimously too. I think someone else mentioned it. That's where the debate should be focussed. Can someone tell us why all those respected people voted as they did? Must have been a reason. Unless we all think none of the Jury are any good, but I doubt that's the case.

Anonymous said:

It'll win cannes grand prix too. you're gonna see that fucking losers.

Anonymous said:

And so goes the longest blog in the history of ad blogs....Cheers to all involved, excluding Mr "Hey, until now I've collected many awards, including three cannes lions. And I think I can say something about that." No, you can't. Tosser.

Anonymous said:

and excluding you my friend. because you said nothing about the sony spot yet. and most likely you don't have any lion. so i won't listen even if you talk :)

Anonymous said:

You obviously didn't win your lions for copywriting

Anonymous said:

It's crap. And it's been done.Wonder Bread did it in Australia two years ago.

Anonymous said:

Saw the ad for the first time last night with a group of friends. Asked all of them what they thought of it and everyone liked it. I asked them if it changed the way they felt about Sony. Everyone laughed and said "no". I asked them if it would influence whether they bought a Sony. Everyone said "no". 3 people don't make a theory obviously but in my humble (mid-weight writer's) opinion those who discount advertising's need to be persuasive are in the wrong business. It's okay to simply entertain in a beer commercial because a beer only costs a few bucks. In a commercial for a TV that costs thousand of dollars, one needs a more comprehensive argument that a load of coloured balls bouncing around. Colour like no other? That's an interesting claim. Why should I believe this Sony? Sony replies, "because our ad has coloured balls floating around. Can't you see them, they're bouncing everywhere. Get with the programme dude".

Anonymous said:

I agree. They've spent 17 gazillion dollars on an ad that looks nice but says absolutely nothing about anything. A perfect example of an agency selling an idea to benefit themselves and not their client.This is nothing more than a student ad with a budget.

Anonymous said:

I couldn't disagree more. I think this is one of the best ads I've seen this year.

Anonymous said:

A subtle segue. Did you hear the one about the suit and the client who got caught smuggling heroin in Singapore?

Anonymous said:

Yeah this ad is generic bollocks. To some of the posters above, it's not unfashionable or old school or fucking "hack thinking" to want to differentiate a product and give punters a simple reason why they should want it. This is fundamental to what we do. In any case, you can still be entertaining and fresh AND say something. Fuck, this is why punters hate advertising, they are so sick of the hype and puffery and shitty claims ads make. Frankly I am really disappointed that it won anything let alone a major award. At a time when agencies are beginning to struggle for relevance crap like this just undermines us further with clients I reckon.

Anonymous said:

Beautiful production, indeed. It reminds of the early work of Damien Hirst. Now, what’s the idea behind it? What would be left of this ad if we took away the big budget production? What if a student came up with this idea? For how long would it hold the attention of its target audience? For me this is just another flashy but idealess ad. Pretty but empty

Anonymous said:

I say we end this post here. 70 comments is enough and besides STW is buying up agencies so we can talk about more shit work soon.--------ENDS HERE-----------------------------

Anonymous said:

Hmmm, yes, lets end the blog now

Anonymous said:

but why?

Anonymous said:

me too

Anonymous said:

I agree!

Anonymous said:

good point, maybe we shouldn't. Who the fuck is that anonymous tosser to tell all the other anonymous tossers to stop talking shit? Get fucked.

Anonymous said:

Can you spot irony in what you just said?

Anonymous said:

Ad students killed the advertising blog.Man, this used to be such a cool blog to read.

Anonymous said:

ANYONE WANNA HEAR A JOKE?

Anonymous said:

that spot looks like a joke already....need no another one I think....

Anonymous said:

I saw it as a poster at Richmond train station today and it doesn't work in outdoor either. Funny that.

Anonymous said:

How dare you!!!!

Anonymous said:

You tosser. Who do you think you are? That work is the best thing of entire ad history for us.

Anonymous said:

A lot of nonsensical comments here lately!! What's the bet the makers of the ad are making them in order to give the impression this blog's only frequented by loonies and therefore not worthy of people's time or debate? C'mon guys, don't be underhanded. Have some balls and write us a lovely creative rationale defending your balls instead!!

Anonymous said:

What a load of pretentious self-congratulatory ego wanking. it's obvious from so many of the comments that you guys need to have sex, and preferably not with each other. The one truism that has so far come out of this verbose spewing is that having an opinion that is opposite to the majority, is apparently wrong. Opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are an individual and they should be respected. It's bad enough that the rest of the planet thinks advertising creatives are wankers without you lot provening it online.Do the punters like Sony's 'Balls'? Yes. And that's what counts. And before twat face asks "Do you work for SIngo's?", the answer is no, I'm not that much of a c*#t.

Anonymous said:

yeah...now you're talking...

Anonymous said:

You have completely missed the point. Liking an ad and acting on it are two different things. My Dad likes the ad very much. Yesterday he went to Megamart and bought a 2K Panasonic. He based his decision on price, features and picture quality. Not on colourful bouncing balls.

Anonymous said:

The Sony ad is so unoriginal. The new Wieden ad for Honda is just the same. These types of ads are well made and emotionally moving and at the end you can't help feel a little bit touched. But, when I see them, I smile at the ad, not the brand. The Sony ad doesn't alter my feelings about Sony or Sony televisions. If anything it makes me suspicious that they have nothing to say.

Anonymous said:

Saw a commercial for a cheap motel chain in the US once. It was very simple. All you saw was a black screen and the following words. "When you're sleeping we look just like the more expensive motels".No coloured balls and 1 million times more convincing. Bet their sales when thru the roof.

Anonymous said:

I saw the same ad for a no frills funeral joint...

Anonymous said:

I can see why it's created by an art director. It's very visual... has cool and expensive production. But that's it. Doesn't convince or alter your feelings... It could be a perfect clip for its soundtrack. Actually I thought it was. In my opinion the Mini's counterfeit work was muuuuch more better. Funnier, fresher.

Anonymous said:

Of course two hotel rooms will look the same when you're asleep. Talk about state the boody obvious.But two TVs, one boasting better depth of colour and picture quality than the other, are never going to be the same are they ? Were you born stupid or do you just work really hard at it?I can't believe that twat face is so puerile and naive in his thinking. Maybe it's you who should be shambling around the badly designed corridors of Singo's with the other creative hamsters (is using the word creative linked with Singo's an oxymoron?).Jeez. The whole point of the Sony 'Balls' ad is to visual demonstrate to all those poor buggers who have cheap TVs that it has better colour. And it it stimulates as much interest with the public as it seems to do amngst us, then it'll do well for Sony.

Anonymous said:

Just another thought twat face, were you born stupid or do you just work really hard at it?

Anonymous said:

Ditto. Some people are beyond dense. The fact that s/he fails to understand the beautifully simple hotel room idea says it all. S/he probably doesn't even know what an idea is.

Anonymous said:

Hey crap, why you didn't like the hotel idea? It was nice. Just a simple headline though. Delivers its message. Says something at least right? That's what we do. On the other hand that fucking Sony spot says nothing. Zilch. That's why, I bet you nobody will remember that fucking spot next year. Except you, because you"ll be stil questioning of why it ended like that. Let me tell you again why it'll be like that: because there is nothing in but the nice production. That's it.

Anonymous said:

Tell what you what, print out this entire posting, stick it on your wall and you'll see why everyone hates ad guys. The debate is over tools, you are just enforcing the notion that the debate is purely subjective by the fact that this post is so long. Want it even simpler? WHO CARES if the balls ad won or didn't? In the broader scheme of things does it matter? Shove this in your hating heads: Something is going to win at Cannes that some people won't agree with and something will win at D and AD that people don't agree with. But you know what? They are realistic and they get on with doing what they do knowing they are just going to do work that they like. If it wins great-if not then it's subjective and you keep going. This debate has been good for a period of time but now it's ridiculous. Balls or no balls, why not do yourselves a favour and accept it won and move onto a healthier debate.

Anonymous said:

You say we need to accept the ad won and move on. Wow, persuasive argument you got there. I sure hope you don't work in advertising.

Anonymous said:

Almost 100 posts and not one that puts forward an intelligent argument in defence of the ad. "It's good, just shut up ya bunch of losers" does not constitute a constructive argument.

lynchy said:

A Very Important Announcement. When this Post reaches 100 it will officially receive a Gold Post - the first in Australasian advertising history - and stand a pretty good chance of picking up "Best of Blog" at the end of year Campaign Brief Great Blog Awards (the CBGBs). And who knows, after that, the Grand Prix at Cannes? (Anonymous hears that Cannes chief Terry Savage is seriously thinking of introducing the Blog Lions for 2006).Congratulations in advance (I know, I know, it might not cross the line, but I'm usually a top picker of winners and I'm very confident of Gold in this case) to all contributors - the sane, the insane, mostly the inane - whose names will be engraved on the Gold Post (including Anonymous, whose contribution, in all its varied forms, was utterly breathtaking).

Pombooie said:

You know what, let's call it a day on the balls. We've reached the hundred, so let's focus on the good stuff... The hairy Banana in Eastern Europe. Now that's truly scary stuff.

lynchy said:

Congratulations. The Gold Post goes to Robert Kleman, Pombooie and Anonymous. We are considering adding the CB Blog to the Creative Rankings, so get posting comments on The Hairy Banana or other interesting articles. If you would like to start a new topic of discussion altogether, email it direct to the blog or to michael@campaignbrief.com

Anonymous said:

Can someone tell me how bouncing coloured balls viewed on the obviously inferior, non-Sony television that Johnny-consumer is viewing this TVC on can demonstrate the superior colour and picture quality of Sony TVs?

Anonymous said:

God, this blog is boring. Why don't you all lighten up a little or do some work. One or the other.

Anonymous said:

FUCKTARDS

Anonymous said:

FUCKTARDS

Anonymous said:

FUCKTARDS

Anonymous said:

FUCKTARDS

Anonymous said:

FUCKTARDS

Anonymous said:

FUCKTARDS

Anonymous said:

FUCKTARDS

Anonymous said:

What's a FUCKTARD?... I don't think it's a word.

Anonymous said:

I'm guessing the poster responsible for writing FUCKTARDS 7 times is FOR the Sony ad.

Anonymous said:

Not for the Sony Ad or against it.Just against self-important ceatives, who think somehow they will save the world through commerce

Anonymous said:

Good grief, someone contact the mental asylum.

Anonymous said:

Why does advertising get a bad name I wonder....Congratulations to you all. I don't work in advertising but I am printing out this blog and am going to use it in a talk. Bet you're feeling a little bit stupid now. Actually no I don't, you can't resist so will reply to this post in the same manner won't you. Funny that.

Pombooie said:

Demonstration through visual analogy. If you can get to grips with understand that, then Grasshopper, the secret of the advertising world is yours.

Anonymous said:

To the poster above pombooie, you might wanna lay off the coke when you do that presentation.

Pombooie said:

Thanks for the advice anonymouse.

graham nunn said:

So many comments, so much debate. Wouldn't it be great if every ad you did generated this much comment.Far better than no notice at all. However, as head of Sony's Australian agency I can tell you that, like the ad or not, Bravia sales are through the roof. Sony's share of the lcd market in Australia has gone to 31.5% from a stand up start and they are now definitely the number one lcd brand in the country. Personally, I think it's a nice visual, nice track and it's hugely campaignable across POS, web etc ( I know, because we had to do it all) but all-time great ad - I don't think so. Good for Sony's image though and that never hurts.

Pombooie said:

So on that note kids, put your crayons away and go to bed. Storytime is over.Let's move on to CB Agnecy of the Year...

Anonymous said:

Finally someone with some authority writes an intelligent response, based on results. Much appreciated, Graham. I think this settles it.

Anonymous said:

There had to be someone didn't there! No. It doesn't settle it. If the ad had had an idea in it, as well as being pretty, perhaps Sony's share would have increased by significantly more than 31.5%.

Anonymous said:

Oh. My God. You idiot. Who the fuck are you? You get what you wanted-the results from the horses mouth and someone with the authority to actually make a comment and you still have to be a dick and make a stupid comment like "maybe their share could have been more that 31.5%" Yeah, and maybe you are just a moron intent on not accepting FACTS. Sure you can disagree, but you don't even accept in real terms that 31.5% is significant and you also don't accept the fragile nature of share and sales. 31.5% is massive. It's larger than any other LCD player in Australia. Bravia in Europe has the biggest increase in share and sales than any other LCD in the past 8 years all AFTER the activity of the ad itself. Even with rationale starring you in the face you still have to be a hater. Congratulations fuckwit you just made a fool of yourself.

Pombooie said:

He's not a fool. He's a trainspotting anorak.

Anonymous said:

Nah he has a point. Some brands could put a dog turd on TV and they'd still sell. And that 31.5 boost might only last for a few weeks. Don't get carried away by it. We are all in the business supposedly of building brands, and long-term appeal, which takes more than coloured balls.And may I just say, when posters resort to calling other people fuckwits to get their opinion across it kind of lessens the impact of their argument. Civility costs nothing.

Anonymous said:

Fuckwit!

Anonymous said:

Fuck this shit. Let's bag Spiller and see how quickly this blog gets wiped too.

Leave a comment