A blog for the New Zealand creative advertising industry, now at www.campaignbrief.com/nz. Email news to: michael@campaignbrief.com

Friday, February 24, 2006

Hmmmmmm. Interesting....

> ----------
> From: Paul Catmur
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:16 PM
> To: 'John Drinnan'; Paul Catmur
> c.c.: undisclosed recipients
> Subject: RE: Shortened Version
> Dear John,
> You seem to have trouble reading, which as a journalist I'd always thought was a prerequisite.
> At no point did I say the campaign 'might not have worked but the controversy made me strangely happy'.
> If someone goes to the trouble of writing a reply (as you requested) I think you could go to the trouble of printing it correctly.
> Paul


Anonymous Anonymous said...


2:33 PM NZDT

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please define campaign for all of us, 2.33pm. In the ambient.new media/not a couple of TVS context.

1:52 AM NZDT

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Woops, meant to say TVCs. Too many Tequillas.

1:53 AM NZDT

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well 3 plane stunts would be a campaign. Under Cannes rule 23b, 2 Plane stunts and a helicopter stunt that wasn't a stunt must fall into the mixed media category. I do however know how Paul feels. I too was once misquoted in the media. The woman at Trade and Exchange put $12k instead of $22k for my WRX. I fielded 100's of calls for weeks. Probably the most effective ad I've ever run.

5:03 AM NZDT

Anonymous eatshit said...

I think the point was John Drinnan should not be trusted - he is the world's worst journalist and would be better suited hacking away on a tabloid.

If your reputation in advertising means anything to you I suggest you don't return his calls. He isn't interested in what you have to say - only what he wants to say...

You've been warned.

2:22 PM NZDT

Anonymous Anonymous said...

eatshit is right - Drinnan is dangerous. If we all ignore him and he'll go away.

10:58 AM NZDT


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home