I’m glad Robin Heisey (“Fatuous advertising 2.0…” letter, Jan. 28, p. 4) decided to debate the review I did (Creative Eye, Dec. 10, p. 60). He’s a very talented person who brings up some good points. Perhaps more importantly, his letter opens a dialogue about where advertising is going and what the different visions are for what’s next. A useful debate indeed.
First, as to whether or not the term “Advertising 2.0” is fatuous (that means foolish or smug in a self-satisfying way, for those of you without a dictionary handy), a Google search of the term turns up 46,600 responses, including an upcoming major conference from Advertising Age. Hmm… apparently there’s a lot of us foolish, self-satisfied, smug people out there.
The WSIB campaign is clearly a traditional TV-centric idea that was “blown out” to other media. Which is why on the site Mr. Heisey raves about, you can-you guessed it-watch the TV spots. You can look at the print ads that were blown out from the TV idea and you can watch some stories admittedly brought to the site with super-cool effects reminiscent of a 1990s-era Rolling Stones video. But when it comes to getting involved in worker safety, you get these really boring government PDF documents that clearly got no love from the talented creative department Mr. Heisey oversees. It looks like they stopped short at the stuff you just get to watch.
Is posting a TV spot online really neutrality? I don’t know. Does getting a million YouTube views from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Botswana really define a success for a regional Ontario client? After all, the WSIB can get 355,000 views by buying one TV spot on the local Toronto news. And how does getting Australians to watch a video affect the way workers and companies do things here in Ontario?
Is blowing out the same traditional idea across a bunch of media options, even if a couple of them are digital, really approaching the problem in a new way? Maybe.
Is Robin Heisey wrong? Am I wrong? Maybe there is no wrong. Maybe there are just different views of where the confluence of creativity and technology can take advertisers. Maybe that’s why we started a new agency, because we believe different things than the people heading up traditional agencies such as Mr. Heisey’s.
We’re launching a blog on which we’ll be discussing these issues, and bringing new ideas from around the world to Canada. You’ll be able to find a link to it from our website, huxleyquayle.com. Everyone’s invited to join in the conversation. Even Robin Heisey.
ANDY SHORTT,
PARTNER, HUXLEY QUAYLE VON BISMARK, TORONTO
BAD MOVE ON BAD WORK
Re: “Running Free calls DDB ads a hoax,” Marketing Daily, Feb. 27
I strongly believe these ads should have never left the agency in the first place and that Andrew Simon should’ve taken full responsibility regardless of what the client may or may not have approved. The agency should not have even entertained presenting these ads to the client. The premise for them is so offensive (and juvenile) that all involved in the creation must have been blinded by visions of Cannes fairies dancing in their heads.
Andrew Simon needs to grow a pair and step up to the plate. This is his bad.
GED STANKUS
GED STANKUS CREATIVE, BEETON, ONT
