Thursday, June 12, 2008

We Like It. We Like It A Lot.

This viral is so damn good, when it ended I had to immediately visit the web address. Did you?

Their regular TV ads are pretty neat too.

by Droga5


Anonymous said...

BUT WOULD YOU PASS THE VIRAL ON? OH YOU DID. Oooops caps lock. Wasn't shouting.

Anonymous said...

Do you mean the viral where the plate in the microwave that should spin round while turned on doesn't, in fact, spin round? If so, it's crap.

william said...

Yeah, this was the brand Dave Trott was on about. I reckon he liked these ones right?

There's something a bit Australian about the thinking, but they still work if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

Nah. Saw the clip on b3ta or somewhere, thought it was quite nicely done for a piece of student work and then went back to what I was doing. Couldn't see any reason to go to the URL, had no idea this was supposed to be some kind of communication.

Anonymous said...

i didn't click the URL. i saw it on a geek blog. I didn't register it was a brand. Ummm. I liked it alot. But i prefer actually microwaving stuff.

Put a cd in your office microwave. Trust me. It doesn't damage it at all. But it does give a nice little lightning show.

Anonymous said...

The fact that the phone didn't turn around spoiled it for me. Why go all to the effort of making it look like just some bloke shot it in his kitchen and then just neglect the fact that things in microwaves turn round?

Anonymous said...

To whoever wants to know what Juan's up to these days:

Anonymous said...

To anon 3.57 PM
Student work?
A bit arrogant, aren't we?
Have you done anything half as remarkable this year?
Didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

@4:15 PM
So Juan did indeed buy Argentina and is shooting bad videos in there.

Anonymous said...

The entire campaign is great. No evil. Villians and Heroes. Fucking amazing.

Now what's that shit you're posting over this lovely topic Anon. 4:15 PM? It sucks.

Lunar BBDO said...

Those cartoons were tomorrow's post. I love them. Now I must think of some more shit for tomorrow.

Oh, hang on, I've just thought of something...

Anonymous said...

Anons 3:17 and 4:06

As if it matters, I'm pretty sure not all microwaves spin.

Anonymous said...

This blog is becoming far too predictable and boring. Lunar rubs Scamps cock. Scamp contradicting himself every ten seconds. Fallon this. Droga that. If Dave Trott likes it, then so do I...

I'm not reading this shite anymore...

Anonymous said...

Jezzz relax, Neil or Anonymous whatever name you like the best.

Wiedens handjob is Fridays, you know that.

You muppet.

Scamp said...

Yeah, I bang on about Droga the whole time... that was the second mention in 2 years.

I take your point about Fallon too. What have they ever done?

Anonymous said...

That viral is nothing special (what, are we actually meant to believe because they've shot it in that hammy blair witch style that it really happened?) and the TV is a good idea but should have been a 30.

Honestly Scamp. Hold of on the Magna Cum Laude for a bit. You've given a lot of blog inches to a lot of dross recently.

Scamp said...

Everyone else think it's dross?

Anonymous said...

I thought it was really, really memorable. Maaayyyybbbeee not that forwardable for the masses.

re: Gordon Comstock

What's Australian behind the thinking?

Anonymous said...

I think the microwave viral's pretty good, but the League of Evil cartoons are fucking brilliant (especially Skateboarding Ghost). As are the Heroes films. Everything Dave Trott was talking about the other day is right there in those films.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's dross but I do think you're a bit too generous with Fallon, specially Juan. And his hair.

Anonymous said...

I found it provocative - it provoked me to figure out what it was about, anyway, but not enough to pass it along (outside of industry peers). From a message standpoint, it puts too much faith in viewers going to the URL to form any connection.

Still cool - and the argument over a spinning plate in a microwave is evidence that there's not much else to nag on.

william said...

This woman is a surrogate grandmother.
You'd have to be evil to rip her off.
Who'd do that?
Her phone company.
Her phone company is evil.

It may be effective. It's not subtle though is it?

Don't get me wrong, I dislike Australians as much as the next man.

Alan Wolk said...

I'd like to suggest, as an experiment, that all of you who like this commercial and/or campaign do what the average consumer will do upon seeing it, which is to go over to Google and enter this phrase:

net10 phone service reviews

Then click on the first couple of results. Including the one from

You'll quickly see why the serious problem with these ads, and why, given the online comments about Net10s customer service (or lack thereof) they probably have a net negative effect.

Scamp & D. Trott are right- they're nicely done, quite memorable and all that.

But as I've gone on about for some time now, that's sort of irrelevant now that the internet lets us "fact check" companies.

(Here's the google results link if you'd rather not do it yourself, or if it's different coming from a US address:

Anonymous said...

re Alan: True. But what can the agency do about that? Not much. I'm sure they got briefed around that brand promise, if Net10 f*ck it up it's their fault. Happens a lot these days I think.

re Gordon: Still don't get it. Seems much more American to me. But I agree with you: subtle no, effective yes.

Alan Wolk said...

@Larry Bird: What can the agency do about that?

How about take 3 minutes to try that google search themselves.

I mean seriously, where were the planners?

Then push back at the client and say "look, everyone online is saying your customer service is worse than all the big cell phone companies you want us to bash. You've got to fix that first, if you want us to go down that road."

And then find another strategy.

Cause what happens is the customer sees the clever video about the microwave or the grandma, sees the lousy reviews on Amazon, and thinks "those SOBs lied to me, I'll never trust them again."

I've been calling that sort of pathway "The Real Digital Revolution" and it's completely changing the role advertising plays from being a delivery system for news about a product to being an impetus for you to check out what's being said about the brand online.

Anonymous said...

re Alan.

That's a good point. But I'll make a generalization here; 95% of the companies that fall within an évil' category (phone companies, banks, insurance companies, oil companies etc) are well and truly evil. Communications can't cover this up, or fix it.

For the strategy to change, evil inc would have to change the way it conducts its business.

Which, unfortunately in this day and age, in most cases is beyond the power of agencies, or the marketing department.

Net 10 probably falls into this category, but might be a little better. I agree there probably could have been a better strategy Droga5 could have taken, but nonetheless they got to do world beating work.

Anonymous said...

It's good as an advert...or a viral 5 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Its def not dross Scamp, but i prefer the TV to the viral. Its rooted in the truth and really well done.

Can i have a placement please?

Anonymous said...

Apparently Juan is crap at football. So there!

Anonymous said...

OK viral. Very nice tv spot. However nothing kills a bad product quicker than great advertising. Net10 are you listening?

Anonymous said...

9:16 PM Anon
What the fuck are you on?

Anonymous said...

I seriously doubt that the 'no turning' will make the punters like it any less. It didn't make me wish I'd done it any less.

The fact that it's on a geek blog says more about how good it is than than a conversation on an ad blog.

The cartoons make great watching too. Good vs evil is a smart way to position a challenger brand. Maybe it's been done before, not sure. Anyone else seen that strategy for a phone company?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I'd rate the viral as "OK" but the ads are brilliant. Very [adult swim]. And although Mr Wolk has a valid point, Mr Bird is spot on. Droga 5 are doing THE ADVERTISING, Net 10 do THE PHONE BIT including the service and therefore cannot be responsible for user reviews. The 'no evil' idea is simply excellent and has the legs to be a really long-running campaign thought (and hopefully they'll be able to improve the service over time).

Anonymous said...

Rhayter, never mind Mr Wolk and Mr Bird, I think DK has a valid point there. Gordy, what's the deal with the unfunny anti-Australian schtick? And what's so Australian about the thinking in the 'heroes' spots?

If Mr. Trott's taught us anything, surely it's that 'subtle' doesn't mean jackshit next to 'effective'.

(G'day DK)

Anonymous said...

Clients spend all their ime telling us that our advertising is crap (we work in the only industry where constant and utter failiure to do our job is acceptable). It's about time we told clients when their product is crap. See how they like it. Twats.

william said...

Ok, clearly I've dug myself into a xenophobic hole here. What I was trying to say was, phone companies have complex small print that can sometimes seem unfair. It's an a deliberate oversimplification to say that they're all evil. And it has something about it of the "we call a spade a spade mate" attitude that Australians take pride in. And Dave Droga is an Australian.

But it does work and it works precisely because the claim is so exaggerated. I believe you'd call it ballsy.

I'm going to stop now. I have work to do.

Anonymous said...

I worry about some of you people. Firstly, if you don't like what Scamp or anyone on here has to say, clear off, no one ask you to come here.
And more importantly this work is genius, it's so original and entertaining. I certainly wish I'd done it.

Anonymous said...

I am constantly amazed at the number of people in advertising who say and ad is either "Good" or "Bad" and then tell people who disagree with them that they're wrong. It's subjective you idiots. No one is wrong. I hate the fucking Wayne Rooney poster (no idea in it) and Sony Balls (It's just a load of coloured balls. I don't get it). It's my opinion (or IMHO as the kind of twats who also say "back in the day" would say), your opinion may be different. Who, in the end, cares?
That's why research doesn't work. It's trying to make the subjective, objective. Impossible.

And anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

]-[appy Thought said...

I like the fact the demon kinda looks like something but not really. I'm surprised the client let them make something so abstract, but more power to them for that. I've been sent this viral by a few mates but the 3 I've had (from different youtube URLs)have all had the link cut off the end, making is nothing but a fun movie for me until I watched this version.

So yeah its a nice bit of CGI, I've been told that not many american microwaves spin now, so that's a cultural hangup perhaps, but it also shows that the product or the company isn't very well integrated with the ad, if you can cut off the last second and fuck up their communication totally. I'm sure there is a Mr. The Trott lesson in there somewhere...

Anonymous said...

Wow. Some really heady and intelligent debate going on here. I feel quite awed by the abundance of insightful critique and opinion. Lots of really grown up and thought-provoking views on how advertising works these days, the relationship between on- and offline communications, the role of creativity and creatives in solving client business problems. Really makes me think I've got lots to learn.

Oh no. My mistake. That's on Huntingdon's blog.

Anonymous said...

It's a blatant copy of this viral:

Get with the nineties guys

Anonymous said...

fun stuff

Anonymous said...

If we didn't remember it's a copy of something from the past, it's unlikely the average viewer will. In which case, apart from ego and pride, who gives a shit?

Anonymous said...

Apologies Mr Scamp for my (now deleted) uncouth remark. I didn't realise the "w" word constituted an obscene remark over there. (I used it in a TVC that ran in family viewing time and nobody batted an eyelid.)

It was still a very silly thing to say Gordon. I think you're drawing an extremely long to suggest that the strategy behind this ad derives from the fact that Droga's an Aussie.

Mind you, it's almost a back-handed compliment, in my view, because this is really nice work. Distilling all those endless phone company claims and counterclaims, offers and disclaimers into a simple "Phone companies are bad, m'kay - but we're not", and doing it in a way as memorable as these spots, is to be admired. And that has absolutely nothing to do with nationality.

I love the cartoons (probably a legacy of watching too many Justice League of America cartoons as a kid), and the live action stuff is lovely as well - "she's a volunteer GRANDmother..."

I'm also amazed people think it's so crucial that the microwave spin. (Or am I missing some hugely amusing in-joke?)

Alan Wolk said...

@rhayter @ larry bird
>>Droga 5 are doing THE ADVERTISING, Net 10 do THE PHONE BIT including the service and therefore cannot be responsible for user reviews.>>

Not buying that argument at all.
It's a genius, wish-I'd-thought-of-it ad campaign... but probably best for a different phone service.

I mean it's like doing a brilliant ad for a sleek sexy sports car and then sticking a Ford Escort at the end of the spot instead of a Porsche. Or a genius spot for a healthy organic beverage and sticking a can of Coke at the end of it.

It's not 1987 anymore. People don't rely on ads to make purchase decisions. They rely on Google.

If Net 10's service is as bad as people say it is, word will get out and the ads will have a net-negative effect.

One of the reasons this business is in the condition it's in is that we too often take the attitude that we "just make the ads" and that we're not responsible for the brand otherwise. That makes us a lot more disposable and interchangeable.

To be fair, I have no idea what went on between Droga5 and Net10- for all I know, D5 did make these exact arguments and were told that there's a complete customer service revamp coming and not to worry, etc., etc., etc. (And for all I know, Net 10's actually done so and the reviews are out-of-date.)

But if you're going to be calling evil phone companies "evil" you'd better be the polar opposite of "evil."

Anonymous said...

rhayter, you still here?

I thought you were knobbing off after the 47% debacle.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I'm still here. And I voted 'for' Dave Trott, too.

Alan Wolk: so, do you really expect the agency to not do the very best work they can do for their client, just because that client has a customer service issue? Sounds like the quickest way to get dumped off an account, if you ask me. Being an ad agency is a business after all. And advertising is supposed to promote the brand, not denigrate it. Come on Alan, come back to the real world!

Anonymous said...

Anon 4.08 – "knobbing off"? On my own or with someone else?

Nick said...

Alan, from the link you posted I took the first 10 reviews I hit on Google:

First - It's all positive
Second - 2.4/5
Third - 3.8/5
Fourth - “best bang for the buck” prepaid provider
Fifth - 4/5 editor rating
Sixth - Average 2.5/5
Seventh - 7/10
Eighth - 6/10
Ninth - 2.5/5
Tenth - 2.5/5

I make that a pretty varied set of results. With 6 being above average , 3 of which were very positive.

I take your point about a stratergy being damaging to it's own brand if it claims something about the competition that it is in fact itself. But I don't think it applies here.

If this is a bad sample, sorry, but I did what you asked and more.

The viral is fantastic - bang on the TA. And I really like the mock-umentaries. Although I'm just finishing up my studies and they've always told us slagging off the competition is a no-no. Is this just a very English attitude?

Anonymous said...

I just watched the ads again.

The context of evil they run with throughout the campaign is phone companies ripping their customers off through hidden fees and misleading contracts.

Bad customer service is bloody annoying, but it doesn't really violate any of the 7 deadly sins now, does it?

And people aren't going to what the ads and think 'hallelujah. finally the dalai lama has started a phone company'. People have been screwed over enough the years to expect a phone company to believe one could actually be good.

I do agree with most of the points you are making, but I guess the point that I'm trying to make is this campaign will do the brand more good than harm. And like rjhayter said, it creates a strong opportunity to build on this in the future. I'd rather have an unhappy customer that I can try and improve a relationship with than none at all.

Alan Wolk said...

@rhayter: Not following your logic here: a different strategy would result in different ads- why are you assuming they would be worse? Not suggesting that Net10 run ads saying "our phones suck and we're rude to our customers" but if you're going to dis other phone companies for mistreating their customers, you'd better make sure yours aren't saying the same thing about you!

@butwhy- it's not a very good set of results- most are just on this side of 50% - and if you read through, there's a consistent mention of "poor customer service." Watching the ads- the grandma one in particular, you come off expecting a much-loved company with great service that treats its customers like gold. Clearly not the case here.

@LarryBird - I doubt these ads will get me "an unhappy customer that I can try and improve a relationship with"
They'll get me no customers at all.
Customer sees the ads, thinks "hey, finally a phone company that gets that the customer comes first."

Then they go to Google, see the comments and realize Net10 is no better than the people they're mocking.

My point, again, is not that these are bad ads. Far from it. But one of the lessons of The Real Digital Revolution is that if products don't live up their advertising, they don't get a chance- the internet allows people to eliminate them from the list before the actual purchase. (versus the pre-internet "I'll never buy one of those again.")

Anonymous said...

A little context.

As marketers, we're so close to these virals now, we forget that a lot of people are still discovering this whole 'viral' thing for the first time.

How many people actually believed the cell phone cornpopping viral? We forget that according to a recent study by Park Associates, 20% of the U.S. population has never sent an email.

For the general population, I'd give this viral a 4/5.

This takes 'will it blend' and turns it on its ear--'will it microwave'--and then gives you a little 'bonus.'

Anonymous said...


Why are you even sh*tting on Net10's customer service in the first place? The original post was about a popular viral video that a lot of people obviously like, with no mention of their products, service, etc. Take your negativity elsewhere or start making relevant comments about the post.

Alan Wolk said...