This has to be some of the worst art direction i've seen since the 1980's.
Complete dog shit.
The problem with presenting work like this in a pitch, is having to produce it if you win it.
Cummins can keep winning new business, but the question has to be asked, will they be able to keep producing work of this standard?
This ad would be quite good if the product was a new kind of ship with a picturesque lake inside it.
....I don't work at Cummins. I'm embarrassed for everyone that does.
And today in Photoshop class... how to polish a turd.
Art Direction could be better but strategically this is spot on. Simple and benefit driven.
I actually laughed when I saw the print.
Terrible on all levels. Who the fuck did the 'retouching'?
I hope they did not get that one cheap/for free by saying it was 'One for the reel'.
No that's not how consumers think, that's how we think. that's the problem.
snipe snipe snipe
good ad, does exactly what it says on the tin
It looks like shit, but by God I understand the benefit. It might even make me want to go.
For people thinking of going away on a cheap, domestic holiday, it's fine. Not career-defining, but it's fine. It could even win some customers.
consider this a lesson from sean cummins in how to pitch for a mediocre, unadventurous client, win the pitch, make the work on the cheap to keep your margins healthy, and keep the client happy to boot.
seriously, if you're pitching against him on an account like this, the fucker will beat you every time with:
old-fashioned advertising with a very clear product benefit expressed in a very simple endline that the client can remember when talking to her/his partner that night.
it won't go in your book, it (shouldn't) go on the blog, but it'll win the pitch.
Are you farkin serious?
and that's driving you all out of jobs very soon.
Fuck I can't believe this is the shit aussie agencies are creating these days.
The punters seeing this will not be thinking 'what lousy art direction, what awful Photoshop'. They'll be thinking 'Gee, that's an idea, we should pack the car and go to Tasmania on the boat'. I had the distinct displeasure of being on the pitch team for this account a few years back, so I know the product - and the brief hasn't changed. The thinking is hardly revolutionary, it just needed to be communicated effectively. Not beautifully. In fact the almost child-like crudity of the art direction makes the proposition crystal clear. Yes, it's something a kindergarten kid could have done with a pair of scissors and a bottle of Clag. But aren't we all getting a bit sick of magnificently produced nonsense made with a seemingly unlimited budget but lacking any sort of clear idea or proposition...like the relaunch of Optus a few months ago? Think strategically for a moment...if you can.
This ad would, actually, be "career-defining" for both the Art Director and the poor bastard who had to cobble together the various Getty bits n' pieces required ("retouching" is far too strong a term.)
They have since legally changed their names, and are now in witness protection.
God works in mysterious ways, eh?
Seriously,it took me a while to understand what this is.
This is truly an awful ad. Although mums and dads with four wheel drives with bikes on the back will get it straight away. God bless them.
But seriously, youse guys are a complete pack of bitches. Reading the cuntish comments on these CB threads is both incredibly entertaining and really quite heartbreaking. All at once. As you were. Australian ad industry.
Is Mojo rehashing that tagline again?
What a pack of arseholes you all are. Sure it mightn't win any awards, but most print ads that win awards are perfectly crafted for awards juries and not, you know, real people.
This is simple.
It will work.
The rest of you? Get fucked.
Yes, it communicates effectively. Yes, the proposition is clear. Yes, it's easy to get. No, Mr Punter isn't going to get into the intricacies of bad retouching with a magnifying glass. No, the agency didn't do a sloppy job deliberately "because it's for real people" - they did a sloppy job, full stop. No, doing it right would not have made the ad less clear.
The reason why the type on the ship is at the wrong angle, why the foliage overlapping the ship is wrongly etched-out, ditto the car, why nobody got the sea-sky transition right, etc - that's not done to make the ad appeal to real people vs, award juries.
After all, a builder doing your kitchen extension can lay the bricks without a spirit level (and hence ever-so-slightly wonky) and still say (correctly): "Fuck it, mate, it's not like your wall's going to collapse, after all. It works. Job done."
Punters can't see mistakes. When agencies can't...well, for ad "professionals", that's a slippery slope, with a pile of something smelly waiting at the bottom.
See you in Tasmania (because, fuck it, the ad works, job done.)
It's not about doing award winning work. It's about your duty to peoples eyes and ears. This is garbage on every level.
I'm not sure why everyone is saying this is such a genius strategy. It's not like the Spirit of Tasmania is a tunnel that you simply drive through to Tassie. I go to Tas a fair bit and there's nothing about this ad that convinces me it's worth paying the extra money for the vomity overnight boat than taking a quick flight and hiring a car when I get there.
Perhaps you’re not sure why everyone is saying this is such a genius strategy because no one did.
‘Clear and simple’ is as good as anyone has said. But you have beautifully refuted an argument that was never made.