I posted on this before; seeing more creative art in advertising because the only way to get people to watch ads anymore, and not zip right through them, is to give them some entertainment value. This is done, I imagine, by creative individuals, artists to some degree at least, not just sales/business people as may have been more traditional.
My Australian roommates Rachel and Edda pointed me toward this commercial for an Australian airline, Qantas, that uses the Australian Youth Choir singing in worldwide locations in their ad. I thought it was really great - it's a beautifully directed children's choir, and it makes me (and them!) want to watch the ad again and again.
On a side note, I thought it was interesting that the Youth Choir is part of the National Institute of Youth Performing Arts, but receives no funding from any government or corporate entity, and undertakes no fundraising. All of their income is from tuition fees, concert performances and merchandising. Hmm.. must be some high tuition. Rachel, now 19, tells me she was chosen from a singing line-up of everyone in her grade 4 class, to be apart of the Choir for a short time.
Posts
7 months ago
2 comments:
Artists have no business in advertisements. An ad based on entertainment translates into trickery; your ineffective ads interrupted my lifestyle to such an extent that I ignore them. I'll only pay attention if you entertain me.
How about instead of "getting people to watch ads," creating relevant content that I've given my permission to receive? Then there's no need for the bait and hook.
Of course, relevant content is always best, but if it can also hold the consumer's attention in an artistically interesting way, (what you call bait and hook) it's done it's job for the company if only for the branding/positioning, and also given exposure to the artist. I do think artists have a valuable place in good ads.
Would you dismiss commercial art as useless?
Post a Comment