Following Hunting, which opened the debate, here's the next film in our Barnardo's campaign.Director: Jeff LabbeCreatives: Nick Allsop, Nick Gill, Dominic Goldman, Simon VeksnerCreative Director: Nick GillThere's digital activity too.
Caught the new one a few times on telly tonight Scamp - really got my attention (and I really wasn't out looking for ads tonight!)Pretty damned good IMHO :D
just saw it on the tv.really compelling.givus a job
Disturbing, very, very powerful.
sorry i am from hong kong and are having a bit of trouble following this.but nonethesless liked the video. But don't really get the 'hunting'. really.
Hunting was good.This is really, really good.
Pfff, a bit easy, don't you think?I don't believe in this kind of advertising, it's to heavy, people just built a wall to protect themselves.This is charity advertising 'old school'.Sorry.
Just been on youtube to watch it as the link wasn't working properly. Think it's really strong, really liked it. I preferred it to Hunting, it just felt more realistic and to know that is going on right now somewhere hits hard.
Look forward to seeing the digital work, hope it's as powerful?
Besides the fact that the ad itself is a very good piece of work, it is the perfect second step after Hunting; awareness is only valuable if followed by a change of attitude. I also like this alert rhythm of your campaign, it really keeps the audience tuned in, which wouldn't have been the case if the second ad had arrived two weeks later.Again, congratulations.
Really nice, caught my attention straight away and kept it. Nicley polished production. Thumbs up.
you hadn't seen this thenhttp://video.aol.com/video-detail/douleurs-sans-frontires-stop-pain/2411486992
The only thing that I don't like is the whipcrack-slap noise when the guy hits her round the head. She got a mousetrap back there?Otherwise I think it works well when it gets going, paints Barnardos in a slightly different light for me personally too.
I kept expecting it to make up a little tune like that Sacla ad. Think you may have missed a trick here.In all seriousness though this isn't an ad for Barnardo's, Drug abuse yes. Or maybe even early learning centre. You can trace it all back to the fact she can't read. Try sticking a WHSmith logo or a Harry Potter book on the end and watch the awards roll in
Prefer the 'Hunting' one myself - the idea of using comments as dialogue feels more modern and interesting. That said, this one will probably be more effective to 'real people'.
Hunting is a lot more creative, intelligent and compelling.This idea of the the never ending cycle is not new, even though the execution is very powerful.Congrats anyway.
Doesn't endear me to Banardos. Now I just associate them with shock advertising now. I remember it, and I remember Barnardos, but in a negative light.
Terrible casting.I get the feeling she's going to skip merrily back to 'drama school darling' the moment the cameras have stopped.And the ad's a bit of an old formula.But apart from that......
You'd have thought she'd learnt to duck by now.
no idea in this one. 'Hunting' was much better. Kinda show's too much, nothing left to work out.
I’ll tell you how bad it is: I was expecting it to be for the NSPCC. Continually ramping up the level of violence and ‘realism’ is a dead-end idea.
Great ad. It really stood out when it came on last night.Extremely effective.
I wonder, are we growing insensible to shock approaches?
sebastiona,i hope you are being ironic with your picture.
People are immune to the 'violence' approach these days. NSPCC nailed it a decade ago with much stronger work. The cartoon child springs to mind.Doing stuff like this is easy.It's much harder to do a charity ad/campaign that shows a positive spin on how a viewers donation will make a difference. Also, the repetition trick reminds me of the DDB volkswagan ad your mate did Scamp. Thats not very nice is it. Stealing a technique from a mate (who stole it from a clip on youtube). Small world your brain lives in Scamp.
We may pick holes in it, call it 'a bit easy' and say that it's a 'dead-end idea'. But it still stands out in any commercial break, which is one of the things any ad wants to do - stand out, to get the message across.
to those of you who say it stands out in the ad break (George, please change your picture) does not make it a good ad. it's just a sorry reflection on where we are at the moment as an industry.more importantly scamp, i don't see how this hangs together as a campaign with the hunting thing.are they under the same umbrella?
Hunting was to a different brief - opening up the debate on how we as a society view children.Break The Cycle, and other pieces still to come out, are about the children themselves - children in crisis, that Barnardo's is trying to help.
thanks for ruining my late-noon-post-meeting-chocolate-hob-nob-and-tea-with-half-a-sugar buzz scamp.i'm gonna drown myself in it instead. i just feel depressed now. not giving.
i feel sorry for that girl but only because her acting is the stuff of Eastenders. she doesn't look vulnerable, which is why this ad falls for me. nice try.i suppose.
This self worship stuff starting to p*ss me off, first wals blog gone down hill and now yours.
i agree. it would've been much cooler to just let it out into the public domain and do one of your anonymous comments scamp to bring it up 'randomly'.
Be fair: it's the man's site. I think it's brave of Scamp to show us what he's been up to. And, if he didn't, people would call him a coward.That said, I don't like the ad.
Sorry to a couple of people whose comments I've deleted. They were critical of the ad, but I didn't delete them purely because they were critical. As you can see above, quite a few critical comments are here. Criticism is very much allowed. However, if you are criticising anonymously, the house rules ask that you do it either constructively, or very wittily. Anonymous comments (about any ad, not just mine) that just say 'this is rubbish' or 'this has been done before' are no longer kept.
12.49 - the self-worshipping accusation is not really fair. I didn't even say the ad was good, did I? I just said 'here it is'.
Of course it's self-worship, you're removing all the comments that don't like it. Don't insult the intelligence of the people bored enough to read this stuff. Wonder if this stays on?
1.28 - I most certainly am not removing all the comments saying they don't like it.Just have a look above - 8.54, 9.36, 9.43, 9.52... I could go on. All critical.The comments that have been deleted failed to follow the very simple rules - be constructive or witty, or failing that, don't post anonymously.
I cannot believe you just deleted that scamp.
Shocked!!! Censorship! You Nazi....True colours mate.
It's not censorship, it's just rules of debate. Like they have on the BBC forums, the House of Commons... most places really.
yes, Nazis excluded Jews too with simple rules of debate. long before the holocaust.
My posts were deleted too. The fact that i wasn't constructive enough in my criticism is fine. I've been 'constructing' criticism for the last few minutes and here's what i've come up with:VW 'Enjoy the Everyday'http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4U5wAnB9RzQSmirnoff 'Love'http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xrpoSVThEOcVodafone 'Cartwheel'http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrLUTmG7LIThese all used the technique of repeating scenes, but used them in a clever way. The Vodafone ad is especially special and should have got far more coverage than it did. I'm assuming you've seen it.So once again, for the third time,I'm afriad the technique used in this Barnardo's commercial feels like it's been done and done in much cleverer and better ways.
1:52 - a tenner says that gets deleted!
people don't want this sort of ad interrupting their enjoyment of 'i'ma celeb..' or whatever.its just too heavy, the tone is very very predictable. why do all charity ads have to be hard hitting, shocking, upsetting. its just wallpaper now and the more of them that get aired, the more de-sensitized we get of these issues.we need different thinking!!!!
1.52 - there's no censorship here. You can say whatever you want, if you have the balls to put your name to it. But if you don't, you can't.
The technique of stop motion animation was used by Morph on Hartbeat. Aardman and Nick Park then used it for Wallace and Gromit.Photosonics (extreme super slow motion) was used on Linda McCartney commercials. M&S used the same technique for their food campaigns.A camera technique or shooting style, once used, does not mean that it can never be used again.
Other 1.52, you raise an interesting point.What I would ask you is - how come you like the Vodafone ad, if you feel the idea had been done before by Smirnoff?In my opinion, an idea can only be done once, but a technique can be used again and again, as long as it's used relevantly in the service of an idea.And you missed Ariston off your list.
Brilliant. I nearly had to look away - which is the sign of a darned good ad where my desensitised little eyes are concerned.Nice one guv.
Anonymous 1:52 pm, you know where to send the tenner.At least Scamp will get some small compensation for your bad manners.
1.52 (the one with the list)I could agree with you. On one condition: you should also come up with the list of all 2008 TV ads that use any zoom-in filming technique. You can narrow down your search to Europe only. Thank you.At the university we used to analyse films in detail, talk about how choosing a particular filming technique helped transmit the message or weakened its impact and so on, but never heard any of those great teachers and film critics associating negative points with using an already seen technique or using the same technique twice in your career. You cannot very politely ask Nike to use different materials and production techniques for every new pair of running shoes, can you?
Anca,Your grounds for defence are rooted in the vastly generic.And therefore, no grounds for defence at all.
I think this is a great follow-up to Hunting, Scamp. (And I am by no means a fawning fan of your work.) Just because it's emotional and disturbing, and other charities have made emotional and disturbing ads, doesn't make it any less fresh or impactful. I thought the girl played her part admirably, too.And lastly, if people want to pick fights, they should at least say who they are. (And not make ludicrous parallels with Nazism - the most trite, absurd and clichéd of argument tactics.)
2.47 -- If you replace "defence" with "attack", your theory also applies to the comments criticising this ad based on the technique used.
Well done 2:47 for (apparently) understanding anca's comment.Try as i might, i can never understand a word she's saying.
I think this is a wonderful ad (although I agree on the casting comments). I don't find it particularly shocking but I don't get the impression that that was the objective. Like Hunting, it feels like the ad is targetted at those who don't understand or appreciate the cycle that results in 'problem' children; I think this ad is an eye-opener and successfully drives the point home.
Bollocks.Anca has a point. Not about the shoes - I'm pretty sure that was a metaphor. But the zoom thing. Or anyone that has used a lens flare, or anyone who has done a screen wipe. If a TECHNIQUE has been used before, then there's no reason that it can't be used again. If an IDEA has been used before, then it should not be used again.Whoever said that Fredrik Bond's Smirnoff ad is anything like this ad is talking rubbish. They are miles apart. Smirnoff took out a few clips and frames, making the action jump forward, editing the protagonist's speech.VW Everyday jumped around to create a musical track from the every day sounds the car made.This film shows some action, then speeds it up by using less frames every time we come back to the same part of the story, illustrating the vicious circle of theft, drug abuse, poor schooling etc.
I think its great and people are talking about it and its getting noticed thats the point right?https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25955410&postID=8009320131782894406
oops! i meant to paste thishttp://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=939819
anca is female?
i think it's a bit heavy handed (no pun intended).
ok then. if an IDEA has been done before and you shouldn't do the same IDEA AGAIN, how do you explain this ad that was done a month ago, with the EXACTLY SAME IDEA as yours?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dle-iwQuC5s(yep, i know someone else mentioned this ad a few posts above but it didn't get enough attention in my opinion)
I know this is going to sound preachy. but please could we hstop equating such things as deleting comments on an advertising blog to the horrors of systematic genocide? It's not witty or clever and it trivialises the deaths of 6 Million people as well as also demeaning the blog on which it's written and the writer himself. If you can't see the difference 1.52 then you're an idiot. Screaming 'Nazi' is just a little pathetic now we're all grown up and out of school.
5.09 - how can I explain that ad that was done a month ago? I can't. Because I don't get it. Sorry.
I found this very effective but predictable. I knew instantly I'd seen the first cycle that it was going to spiral into repetitiveness. The cycle could have subtly evolved visually besides the repetitive sped up editing but I'm guessing that's all you could do on your probably non-existent charity production budget. It's the sound that works so well too, especially if you're not even watching the TV. Well done Si, I you're be wearing many a black tie over the next twelve months.
5.09 the DSF ad is very different execution.maybe that's why your comment didn't get "enough attention".
come on scamp,you need a better defence than that once you've been rumbled.
As Hegarty would say, good but not great.
Let's break the cycle of this thread perhaps?
Hey Scamp,Sorry to bring up this old post. You said "There's a digital version of the idea as well, I'll put that link up shortly too."I've been waiting on that link to post this campaign on osocio.org.Has it been made? Cheers
The link is up now. Thanks for your patience, Jeroen.
Post a Comment