That’s what we used to call ads like these back in the Pleistocene Epoch (the 1980s) when New York’s School of Visual Arts was basically the industry’s River Rouge assembly line of creative talent. Today, there are lots of other schools, so maybe they’d be called “Portfolio Center Ads” or “MAS” ads. Whatever. The point is they were ads done in great earnestness by students desperately trying to do extraordinary ads, but who hadn’t yet learned to avoid what an old boss of mine used to refer to as “coming downstairs with a fish in your mouth.” In other words, doing something to get attention despite the fact it makes no sense whatsoever.
In an academic setting, this could be easily corrected. But alas, in the commercial realm–where more’s the pity, both of these ads appeared–it’s a much bigger problem. Because these are both perfect examples of the sort of ads clients are persuaded to buy every day on the basis of how “different”, “breakthrough”, “fun”, “unexpected”, “quirky”, “edgy” and to use my word, “extraordinary” they are. Only to discover after the fact that what they really are is a) useless, and b) embarrassingly stupid. Neither of which is likely to advance the client’s cause or career.
And it is precisely for these clients, for whom I have some sympathy, (note “some”) that this column is written. Because the somewhat-less-than-fine line between ads that are different and extraordinary and ads that are different and just plain dumb is one of those things that just isn’t taught in the business schools where most clients acquire the rest of their marketing chops.
In the book I go to great lengths to explain how this works (okay, 200 pages, but it took me long enough to write it). But let me summarize it for anyone interested here: extraordinary advertising isn’t just different or engaging or charming alone. It is also smart, insightful and firmly grounded in some “truth” about its audience or people in general. And it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist or Bill Bernbach to comprehend how lacking these ads are in any of those qualities.
And now we have Miami Ad School ads- based on the ability to shock, disgust, or annoy.
Using the excuse of “clutter busting” these ads do get through- but they often do little to sell.
And, in the end- the old saying “it’s not creative if it doesn’t sell” still holds true.
Mark, thanks for articulating what it means to be an “adult in advertising.” I think one of the industry’s biggest problems–and dirty little secrets–are creative directors who should know better, but are often cowed by junior writers and art directors into advocating for work that’s supposedly cutting edge but is often merely dumb, tasteless or trying too hard. Why? Because a lot of these people in their late thirties and forties are afraid to look like over-the-hill hacks when explaining the difference between a real brand idea versus a lame gag.