Excuse my ignorance...
... but can somebody please tell me (in plain English) which piece of
scam work it is that everyone's bitching about?
All this code language and confusion is making my roids flare up.
posted by CB at 1/19/2006 10:35:00 am
28 Comments:
See post:
'The work the client did not approve is not Josh's work, but the work of Andrea, Janelle, Karl and Derrick. Bewildered it magically appeared in Campaign Brief this month are Andrea, Janellle, and most importantly, the client.'
11:47 am NZDT
yeah but what was it?
12:31 pm NZDT
Lotsa noodles!
12:40 pm NZDT
I'd like to thank Coast guard for giving Karl permission to let it run.
I'm sure he told them what type to use on it hence naming rights
1:31 pm NZDT
I heard that the whale that sunk that 50 foot yacht was a Mojo scam.
They borrowed one of those spare whales from Whale Rider, added a Mercury 50 hp motor, and set it off on an Exocet style mission to hit the boat.
It has scam written all over it.
As for the Coastguard work - can Mojo please show us the invoice that was billed to the Coastguard for that four page extravaganza.
I'm sure we'll find the client never paid a cent for it - and if they did, it would be for a nominal amount.
You'll also struggle to find any ad creative in NZ thinking it was a real ad made with the most honorable of intentions.
Its pretty hard trying to compete with an agency that has never ever, nor will ever, make a profit.
As for that ketchup idea...
1:48 pm NZDT
Has anyone stopped for a second and thought about what truly great work (scams included) do for the industry.
Well I'll tell you - it advertises us (the industry), it inspires us, it shows clients who want to make great work what it looks like.
It makes us all look good.
The only time scams or agency funded work or proactive work actually bites us in the arse is when we as an advertising community throw stones at each other, bitch and behave like a bunch of pricks.
And why does this spiteful bile pour forth with such ease?
Hint: It's one of seven sins.
2:56 pm NZDT
Was there even a logo on it?
3:01 pm NZDT
I don't even work at Mojo, DDB, Lowe or where ever But I have seen the ad, love it, I know it is running in media and is good, So why doesn't every one get off thier back and get on with trying to better the coast guard work.
Nice work Josh and the boys who wrote it - don't listen to this crap.
I'm sure Worthington is a little more proffessional than not getting it approved - Why can't every one have a bit of trust.
If the agency pays whats the big deal - It is a good ad so I'm sure will help saving boaties lives.
This blog is falling apart becuase of this stuff.
Even though it is Australian, at least campaign brief is a little more grown up.
While we on it - I would give my right eye to have the Ketchup sachet in my book.
3:08 pm NZDT
Would you give your right leg?
3:15 pm NZDT
Can we just all clarify for some of those numb nuts who haven't been reading everything, the work being discussed is NOT the one done by Josh. It is ANOTHER campaign. OK? Good.
3:17 pm NZDT
I didn't realise MTC had done any work on CoastGuard.
3:18 pm NZDT
dear anonymous,
I grew up once.
It's not what it cracked up to be.
Scams are ok but a bit like masturbation - done for your own end and too much of it blinds you to what it's really all about.
3:22 pm NZDT
Even though it was deleted from the Campaign Brief Blog (apparently because the top person at NZ Coastguard had approved the work) it can still be viewed if you use the SEARCH ALL BLOGS button at the top of this blog and type COASTGUARD. It's the second one down. Unfortunately, only the first paragraph is still there. To see the actual ads, you will have to get hold of the Dec 2005/Jan 2006 issue of Campaign Brief and flick through the "Seen + Noted" section.
3:23 pm NZDT
Dear pie eyed,
I've heard that that whole scam explanation masturbation thing before in fact I think it's been posted on this blog before.
How brilliantly ironic.
3:38 pm NZDT
Can someone explain to me like a I'm a two year old exactly which ad you're all talking about?
Please oh fuckin' please!
3:47 pm NZDT
EXPLAIN THE CUNTING AD!!!!
4:07 pm NZDT
plug.
5:02 pm NZDT
No, I can get that. Cheers.
5:04 pm NZDT
"EXPLAIN THE CUNTING AD!!!!" - You are the angriest most funniest person ever. It's not too simple to explain. Four pages of cute looking famous 5 looking book - then timmy smashes someones face in with a rock. "things can quickly turn" - or something like that - the person who says I'm a cock and I have no idea how what I'm on about can probably explain it better.
5:05 pm NZDT
nice comment...obviously an art director.
7:38 pm NZDT
For more comments on this topic go to the Campaign Brief blog (www.campaignbrief.com) and go to the story headed DDB SYDNEY SNARES SIMON JOHNSON, click on the Comments. For some reason, Simon's article is where everyone has posted comments on Coastguard since the original article was pulled.
9:28 pm NZDT
To the person who said CB is more grown-up - really it's just a PR release mechanism with very little actual opinion or comment and lotsa purdy piccies. This is an interactive debate. Read/write web version 2.0. Debate is healthy. Love it or leave it. :)
3:51 am NZDT
Re: "I'm sure Worthington is a little more professional than not getting it approved - why can't everyone have a bit of trust."
The email written by the client which stated that she had never seen the ad, never approved it, and was extremely disappointed in Mojo was posted for all to on the Campaign Brief blog. It was up for about a day before it was taken off for legal reasons. So first of all, we know it was never approved. Secondly, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT JOSH'S WORK. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MOST RECENT CAMPAIGN - THE PASTICHE ON CHILDREN'S BOOKS.
Right then, let's all find a new subject to bitch about.
10:32 am NZDT
Bugger this. This is the story: It was taken off the CB Blog because it came to my attention that IT WAS APPROVED by the chief of NZ Coastguard. Someone at Publicis Mojo gently explained the situation to CB (no legal threats) and, confirming that fact, I decided it was best to take it off.
2:38 pm NZDT
Ahhh, okay. My apologies, Lynchy. ESPECIALLY FOR THE CAPS.
3:09 pm NZDT
Approval by client aside - wasn't it ripped off some students?
2:12 pm NZDT
Wow is it me or is there a pattern forming.
1:25 pm NZDT
Yawn. . .yawn. . .:-0
get a new rumor.
ru·mor n.
A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
Unverified information received from another; hearsay.
tr.v. ru·mored, ru·mor·ing, ru·mors
To spread or tell by rumor.
[Middle English rumour, from Old French, from Latin rmor.]
1:27 pm NZDT
Post a Comment
<< Home