Bonds creates ‘The Queendom’ in latest campaign via Leo Burnett, Melbourne
After heating things up in Coober Pedy, Bonds is back with another tongue-in-cheek campaign via Leo Burnett Melbourne. This time they’ve left the red dirt and men behind for Australia’s iconic Blue Mountains, or “Bush Land” as the film cheekily dubs it.
The campaign launches the first Women’s only release of the Bonds Originals product.
Says Emily Small, head of marketing, Bonds: “This range was made for young women and so we were excited to make some content that spoke to them. The brief was to create a space where confidence rules, without losing our Bonds sense of humour.”
The result is a Bonds take on owning your femininity – in whatever form you want it to take.
Says Holly Burgess, copywriter, Leo Burnett: “The Queendom, a sassy twist on the traditional Kingdom, felt really natural. We were keen to throw a few
stereotypes out the window and have a bit of fun with it in the process.”
The fashion film shot by fashion director, Gracie Otto, features an all-female cast of six including Thelma, the very real (and really quite friendly) huntsman spider. The music for the spot was created by Kiwi artist, JessB.
The film follows a traveller, played by Indigenous model Zhoe Trotter, on her quest to find The Queendom. There she joins a community of strong women who look out for one another (some literally), chop wood with ‘tude and crack nuts – all in Queen-like style.
The film is a part of a wider social campaign with a suite of short form content and interviews. It coincides with a grassroots fundraising event in store and online with the REACH Foundation, where profits from Bonds Originals on Saturday 11th August will go to support life-changing workshops for young girls.
The campaign is up now online and on TV from 23/07 in both Australia and New Zealand.
Client: Bonds
Head of Marketing: Emily Small
Brand Manager: Kedda Ghazarian
Marketing Manager: Kelly McBride
Marketing Manager: Michelle Taylor
Assistant Brand Manager: Taylah Johnson
Agency: Leo Burnett Melbourne
CCO: Jason Williams
Director of Integrated Strategy: Ilona Janashvili
Creative Director: Daniel Pizzato
Art Director: Lucy Logan
Copywriter: Holly Burgess
Senior Agency Producer: Eliza Malone
Content Producer: Lucy Appleyard
Print Producer: Kirstie Gadsden
Motion Designer: John Angless
Group Business Director: Amanda Nicoll
Account Director: Chloe Erftemeyer
Film Production: Playtime
Director: Gracie Otto
DOP: Stefan Duscio
Executive Producer: Oliver Lawrance
Producer: Tom Slater
Stylist: Ella Murphy
Hair & Makeup: Alan White & Gillian Campbell
Offline editor: Rohan Zerna – The Butchery
Colourist: CJ Dobson – The Refinery
Online artist: Chris Betteridge – The Refinery
Post Producer: Freya Maddock
Sound: Sam Hopgood – Bang Bang Studios
Music: Level Two, Electric Dreams
Track: Day Ones – JessB
Photography Production: M.A.P.
Photographer: Nicole Bentley
Producer: Adam Watson
42 Comments
Love. Well done to all involved.
Very average spot
V cool!
Like it!
Another very good reason to take up bushwalking.
Well done
Cracker.
Are Clems finished with Bonds?
In the Queendom, why are women still mute, practically naked, and completely objectified? Real queens aren’t two-dimensional, and decent ads don’t feed tired stereotypes wrapped up in a cause. Two ass-cheeks down.
so much fun to watch, love love it!
This is offensive and soft porn. How on earth can this be close to female empowerment when it encourages the male gaze at every turn.
Turgid.
Looks like most of the key people involved with this ad were women. Most importantly the creative team and director. They clearly thought it was empowering, and I do too.
Lush production and lots of fun.
Absolute snoozefest.
“The Queendom, a sassy twist on the traditional Kingdom, felt really natural. We were keen to throw a few stereotypes out the window and have a bit of fun with it in the process.”
Seriously? Svelte models walking around in underwear, and the cutaway to pit-hair, is ditching stereotypes? It’s re-establishing two of the most tired and overused (and yes, I appreciate it’s an underwear brand).
I’m sure everyone thought the cutaway to breaking nuts was hilarious, but all it did was highlight that the creators seem to think feminism is anti-equality.
It’s getting really old seeing this theme belted out in adverting; c’mon guys, do better.
Also was the hunstman a deliberate throw-back to the Antz-Pantz ‘Sick em Rex’ concept, or was it in hope the newer audience isn’t old enough to recall?
P.S. pls retire ‘Queen’ from being synonymous with every female, ever.
@@Dave said:
Just because it was conceptualised and produced by mostly women, and you liked it too, doesn’t legitimise it as empowering.
Personally, I don’t see it as empowering. Empowering for what?
It’s just another cliche. At least it looks nice I guess…?
And my opinion is the best.
I adore this. Time we embrace the hair, strength and curve.
This wouldn’t have been easy to sell it, nice job.
@ugh
I get where you’re coming from, but clearly it’s pushing some buttons – check out the comments on Facebook. Most of these men are appalled to see that *SHOCK* Women grow underarm hair!!
Still stereotypical, still a bit naf, but it’s an underwear ad and it’s a bit better than the others. I just think all these chicks are absolute babes and loved seeing them in my feed.
What I’m interested in is what the rest of the campaign is? The song is killer, the social work I’ve seen as a punter is great. Us Queens aren’t watching tv so give us something else.
—
On a side note, clearly I can’t join the Queendom because I’m larger than a B cup – something to think about Bonds.
“Fat one in the pink. Further back..Further back.. No, no… Further. Further”
“Can we do a pull focus on the end frame. I’m still seeing the fat one.”
Fun, entertaining, great track overall enjoyable. Nice one girls, good back up to the summer spot.
I’m all for female empowerment, but I’m also empowered to say hairy pits really turn me off. Yuck.
I think the problem lies with you, not the film.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying women shouldn’t wear short skirts because it encourages men to leer at them.
Get a grip mate, they’re selling underwear. Empowerment doesn’t have a strict criteria (even though you seem to have one). Women can be half-naked, fully-naked, covered in a hijab or dangling from a stripper pole and still be empowered, deal with it, it’s 2018.
“I’m all for female empowerment, but I’m also empowered to negatively judge and bully women that make choices that I don’t agree with” That’s a good one
It’s a bit like the V ad with the Amazonian chicks… but just… not as good.
Not a great copy of the V Pure ad!
Bonds has gone down the toilet.
This is very late to the bandwagon.
Go have an opinion of your own rather than copying everyone else’s.
Great film.
@1:15, how is expressing an opinion about hairy pits negatively judging and bullying? I think sideburns are disgusting, do I need to get some coaching from you so I don’t offend any snowflakes with sideburns out there?
Sassy, fun and proud.
I presume the Queendom is somewhere in Queensland?
@Huntswoman
I mean, the ad looks nice…
I find the premise is reductive to the idea of confidence and empowerment though.
Pit-hair, it’s nothing new. Meh. Big deal. Some people don’t find it pleasant, some people welcome it, and others couldn’t care less. Women grow moustaches too, but they didn’t feature any of those…
All it’s done is invited a few twats to comment on how much they dislike hairy armpits. How is that [still] even worth a conversation?
The chicks in the ad are babes – they’re models. It’s not like they’re going to cast a bunch of mugs; I bet we’d be having a completely different conversation (or none at all) if they did.
I understand it’s trying to be provocative – which [mission accomplished] everyone is talking about – but the use of recycled stereotypes, and that demonstration of crushing nuts, isn’t very progressive.
Take away the aesthetics and it reduces down to women vs men; surely a creative team coming out of Leo Burnett could have evolved an idea beyond that?
I also appreciate it’s deliberately polarising, and don’t doubt that the ad will raise Bonds’ profile and sell underwear. I just think it’s really cheap to keep using female empowerment/ feminism to underpin an underdeveloped (or no real) concept.
If their concept was “we wanted to knock-off V Pure’s Amazonian look and feel, with a throwback to Antz-Pantz’ Sick em Rex, but with models in the Australian bush” then I think I’d give it a clap.
@Ew said:
“I’m all for female empowerment, but I’m also empowered to negatively judge and bully women that make choices that I don’t agree with”
You can dismount from your sanctimonious high horse. Perhaps you should check the definition of bullying, check Ew’s general statement, then re-read your response. You might be surprised as to who’s the bully.
See, this is what I mean. Rather than any kind of real or meaningful conversation, it’s just created a platform for misinformed social/ keyboard justice warriors.
This is what empowerment looks like. What women’s body’s look like. This ad is lame because it pretends to go there. But doesn’t. It’s chicken shit. A man lead this. Sorry.
https://youtu.be/jsP0W7-tEOc
Lots of self-projection from insecure dudes.
Your point would be understood better if you had an elementary grasp of spelling and grammar. I think you meant ‘womens’ bodies’. Note the position of the apostrophe in the first word and the absence of one in a plural. Do try to educate yourself if you’re seeking credibility.
Great spot guys. First TV ad I’ve liked in a while.
No 1:55 you’re wrong. It is women’s bodies. ‘Women’ is already a plural. What you wrote would be read as ‘womenses’. LOL.
@face palm – well played! 🙂
@@this chick – karma, eh?
That was good. Mansplaining at its best. But I see why you’d struggle.
The apostrophe is used to show ownership.
You clearly don’t think women own their own bodies. They are there for your entertainment. Hence you made this ad for you and your buddies to leer at and objectify women. You put a hairy armpit in it and call it groundbreaking.
I’ll show myself out douche bag.
soooooo edgy
Fair point. But can you justify ‘body’s’?
@Yep, @this chick: @face palm’s statement still stands.
– women is plural
– women’s is the possessive (it’s not ownership)
@Dave said:
I think the problem lies with you, not the film
Hey @Dave, it’s not a ‘film’. It’s an ad ya fucking wanker.
Cheers
This is a total rip off of Constance Hall
Soft porn?
its an UNDERWEAR Ad.
Shall all the women by fully clothed?
Clearly very inspired by the recent photo shoots and book covers of Constance Hall.
Sup dog This ad is pretty trash ya know wot Im saying dog… That chik with hair is a dank meme