Here Be Monsters|blog

Shaming the pros?

Some very smart, very stupid or just plain lazy creatives working on the Chevy account over the water came up with the idea of letting the general public come up with an ad to be played out during the superbowl.

As if it's not tough enough convincing people that being a creative in an ad agency isn't one long lunch and/or coke binge but a very demanding and difficult job that requires considerable skill and talent rarely found in mortal form.

All a bit like Faking It. Can you spot the commercial from someone who until two weeks ago didn't even know ads are in 30sec segments?

So, have we creatives been exposed as charlatans, or can we sleep better tonight safe in the knowledge we have been vindicated?  Well you decide.

WHY COULD THIS ONLY BE AMERICAN? | 3

Some time ago I posted about the Apple ads being quintessentially American, and doubted that we English could get the balance right. Well, now they've gone and recreated them with English comedians so, you can judge for yourself here.  Personally, I think they confirm my argument. The charm, the rhythm, the gaps in dialogue, even the slight of performance and gentleness of delivery have all been lost.

Here's one of the originals that has been copied. I'd love to know what you think.

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM TV?

I've lifted this from an interview Creative Generalist did with Steve Callaghan, writer and producer of the Family Guy cartoon series. Here is how he describes the process of developing and writing a script.

"Well, as you might imagine, it is a highly collaborative endeavor. There are about 100 people or so who are in some way or another involved in putting together an episode. The process begins, of course, with the writing staff. My fellow writers and I will come up with a concept for an episode and discuss the general storyline that it would contain. The episode is then assigned to a particular writer who will write the first draft of the script. The whole writing staff then takes that first draft and, as a group, rewrites it -- improves jokes that might need some help, fixes any story issues, etc. -- before the show gets recorded by all of our voice actors. Once the audio has been recorded, then our animation team takes the baton, creating an animatic, which is a rough, pencil-sketch version of the show. Once we all screen the animatic, the writers take another pass at the script to address any remaining writing issues. A while later, the show comes back in color. We then do one more, smaller rewrite on the script before the finishing touches (music cues, sound effects, etc.) are added and then you've got yourself an episode of "Family Guy."

Now, compare that with how the typical creative team in the typical ad agency creates their script.

Account person and/or planner explain brief to creative team. They leave. Creative team spend anything from a day to a few weeks sweating it out. They present their ideas to the CD, who says yes, no, maybe, perhaps etc. What is very unlikely is that he will spend any time working with the team beyond this verbal input. Not through laziness, but because the script 'belongs' to the team. Work is then presented back to the account person-planner combo,  who are allowed to comment on it, but only within the confines of their job title remit. God help them if they mis judge this and over step into the creatives' domaine. Conversations between planner and account person, account person and client, planner and creative director, planner and client all take place in a isolation to one another. As a result nothing much changes in the script until a director is selected. Now the creative team will listen and make changes, because a) the director is also a 'creative' and  b) the team really want to be him.

I've been fortunate enought to have been a part of both processes and I know which one delivers the better work.

why could this only be American? | 2

Roger was kind enough to let me know that there are Japanese versions of the Apple ads I've been taking about and so I clicked over to YouTube to see them. (Isn't that brilliant. I can now, in a matter of seconds, find material that was referenced in a post to me. Every now and then I get an overwhelming sense of the enormity of the change that the Internet brings. And when it does, I find myself loving life that little bit more. My son on the other hand will only know a world connected to wide web, in the same way I've only ever known a world with flying, I wonder what huge changes he'll experience?) Anyway I digress.

Putting to one side the cultural and language differences. Doesn't it seem altogether less authentic to you?  The wardrobe, the casting, their performances - all seem to lack the comfortable, lived-in feel of the original. And so lose charm, the very essence of what makes them appealing. The PC character in particular seems completely fake, lacking any of the appeal/authenticity of the original character.

I thought the Japanese version helped make my point - that the skill sets and sensitivities required to make these particular ads work in such a familiar/intimate way could only come from Americans. Not unlike the writing of Sopranos, WestWing and The Simpsons, now I come to thing of it.

Why could this only be American?

I'm a big fan of this campaign. Partly I'm sure because I'm a big fan of all things Apple - seldom do they get things wrong, everything from the packaging to the stores to the products to the customer service is an articulation of the brand. But mainly I'm a big fan of these ads because they're so, well, charming.

Imagine the script; Open on an empty set. Two men stand side by side talking directly to camera. Hmm, doesn't sound that interesting. But when you watch them they ooze charm. The music, casting, wardrobe and performance, the rhythm of the language, the direction - all make the whole thing very watchable. But also very American.

No other country could have made this, like this. Could it be that as inventors of the modern language of film it just feels right by association and familiarity? Is it that culturally they have more respect for film and a better ear for dialogue because they haven't been brought up in the shadow of a theatre culture?  Or is it simply that because of its size, they have a larger pool of talent to draw on than other countries? I've heard arguments supporting each of these, all of which were compelling, none of which were wholly convincing though.

GET IT NOW, MUM?

Another fine article  in The Observer this weekend and for me one of the more persuaive for the simple reason that my mum can now understand what the hell I'm talking about when I say the cultural significance of TV is on the slide. The article itself deals with the fact that The Daily Mail have not bothered to replace their retiring TV critic.