Friday, June 22, 2007

Gems From Cannes

Been looking through the Cannes winners.

And what gives me the most pleasure - aside of course from the schadenfreude of seeing friends do less well than expected - is the Bronze winners.

They're often ads you haven't seen before, things that are maybe a bit more quirky and not totally immediate, like a Gold winner has to be.

Here are some of my favourite bronze-hued gems.

Just click on the image if you need to make any of them bigger







6 comments:

neilperkin said...

Nice point - and I like your examples

Anonymous said...

Anyone else notice the common theme here? The dominance of visual ads? Is there a need for writers in our business any more?

Scamp said...

Well, just as there always has been, there's a need for writers who can communicate visually.

The best copywriters always have. E.g. David Abbott's 'pile of dead dogs' ad for the RSPCA. It's the 'pile of dead dogs' visual that's really powerful, not the copy.

It's a bit like screenwriting. Yes there's a bit of dialogue. But most of the real work is 'visual writing'.

Anonymous said...

I get your point but your example is from another era really. There's not much copy around these days which is why I posed the question. Perhaps it's "people" who can communicate visually that are needed now rather than "writers" who can? In my experience there's a massive dearth of writers in the business now. Only Watford runs a Copywriting course as far as I know. In the States they still turn out far better writers because they have recognised degree courses for writers (not that the Cannes juries would appreciate this;-))

g. said...

This may not be relevant, but whatever the trend in advertising, in my opinion writers, tone, presentation, bloody good copy etc are still vital to every other aspect of brands generally. It's almost a cliche now, but innocent drinks without Dan Germain? Forget about it. You can advertise without copy, but you can't build a strong brand with a bunch of clever visuals - so maybe the copywriters just went elsewhere.

Wade Sturdivant said...

Hmmmm.

The question used to be "Is long copy dead?"

Now the question seems to be "Is copy dead, period?"

Well, call it what you like, dead, dying or whatever, but like anything in the creative realm, if it's well-crafted there willl always be a need for it and for people who can be relied upon to create it on demand. (Writers, to use a word some may find horribly antiquated.)

True, you'd have to be living under a rock to not know we're living in times when visual solutions dominate the award shows. But that hardly means ad copy is "dead." It's just not being celebrated as often. (Although, weren't the Tate museum ads that won last year mostly copy?)

It's funny. I remember about 10 years ago an article appeared in Creativity magazine here in the USA (written by John Hegarty, I think) explaining exactly why he felt visual solutions were not only good, but in many cases, vastly superior to copy-based ideas.

It was a well-supported and perfectly valid argument.

And it was made up entirely of words.

Granted, that was a magazine article, not an ad. But isn't it telling that he felt the best way to make his point to the public-at-large about the value (nay, superiority) of visuals was with a load of words? :-)

In my opinion, copy isn't dead. It's right where it has always been. Sitting quietly on the page. Waiting patiently to engage your mind and spur your body into action. And to do it in ways that visuals alone simply cannot.

Wade Sturdivant