Short on Creativy? Use a Really Bad Pun

I understand the need for humor in advertising. It entertains. It helps the audience remember the ad. It may differentiate your ad from the clutter.

The are a few things to which I have aversions. One is midgets. I don't know why. It's kinda like a phobia, I guess. The second is badvertising, a term we coined back in college.

You may not have seen the Title Max spots unless you stay up late to watch Poker After Dark. I record and watch it while the kids and wife are still asleep.

I've seen two ads for the lending franchise starring Verne Troyer. He played "Mini Me" aaaand... not much else. I realize he did have a role in one of the Harry Potter flicks, but it was a while back and at the risk of using a pun, it wasn't a big part.

I understand he's just doing this for the gig, because squeaking "I got my title back with Title Max" isn't exactly stretching the old creative legs. Obviously he got tired of waiting around for Mike Meyers to get his shit together and write the fifth installment of the Powers trilogy.

The most egregiously bad part of the spots, besides the tag, I mean, is the premise. The spot shows our hero struggling with the obvious physical limitations of being his size. In one, he's shown struggling with the fact that he can't reach the buttons on the ATM. In the other, he's in a tree and reaching out on the very farthest limb for the money that obviously grows on trees in the Title Max world.

In both, the voice over asks Verne the same stupid question, "Short on cash?"

I'd really like to know what advertising genius who pitched this. He needs to be verbally smacked upside the head. I'm not being sexist when I say "he." No female copywriter would come up with something this lame.

Bum Deal...

Advertiser finds new place to utilize QR codes

Advertising has taken a page out of the real estate handbook. Remember the adage, "What are the three most important things to consider in real estate?"

Location. Location. Location.

Zara Damney and Shauna Mullin, sand volleyball players from Britain, are leasing out space for QR Code advertising and are placing it where most eyes will be during play.

For those of you who don't know your ass from a QR Code, it's a square graphic that's kind of like a bar code. With a certain app and a smart phone, the QR code can deliver a text message, or will directly connect to a website URL. (In this case, the sponsor is a gambling website.)

The question is: How will this effect traffic to the website?

I'm not sure that it will, but I must admit, I'm fascinated by the novelty of this. I think it may be more of a promotion for QR code usage than for the website who is renting space on Damney and Mullin.

I like the idea, in theory, of using this kind of outside the box creativity in advertising. My point is this: It's going to be difficult at best to get a picture of the QR code. Spectators will be too far away for most cell phones to get a good pic. Not to mention the fact that they'll be in motion most of the time.

For argument's sake, let's say that in order to get close enough to get a good snap of the QR code, a fan waits till play is over to photograph the players backsides.

It's kinda creepy.

Creative falls on its ass

I've been guilty of this too. In school while working on creative. Pushing the creative envelope to make an impression.

That's all well and good. When you're trying to get a job in the advertising industry and you have to impress a creative director.

But Summer's Eve, and more specifically, its agency, The Richards Group, is well beyond trying to impress anyone. They're in the business of selling product, not creating a conversation about racial stereotypes or questioning the validity of using hand puppets to simulate talking vaginas. Which is all they've done with their "Hail to the V" campaign.

The brand is taking a beating. Industry folk are talking about the campaign. Most of it centers around the question, "Is it true any publicity is good publicity?" This Adweek piece panned the spot, despite the fact that it pushed the envelope.

Ask Crispin Porter + Bogusky, who was responsible for the Groupon Super Bowl ads.

It hurt the brand. It was creative, yes. No denying that. But the decision to go-ahead, even with the benefit of hindsight, was so ill-advised. In short, this was amateur hour.