Was difficult worth doing? Part 2

So W+K have done the new Honda ad (and so have 4 Creative - see part 1) and I feel a little let down. Not in the way that it compares badly to the classics of the past, but how it compares to the live ad. With the live ad there is a sense of involvement and event. The W+K one just feels a bit too much like... well, an ad. Watching you question the realness of the stunts, and I think I would have less if I hadn't seen the live one first. As with the Sony Balls, Paint and Honda Cog ads, until you know "they actually did that" the spectacle isn't complete. I think tactically the live ad went out first to try and convince us of the genuineness of the second. Unfortunately if that was the case, it backfired.

Maybe it's the cinematic style as well. Documentaries are often filmed on video for a reason. The stunts are not impressive enough for cinema, if they'd shot it with a PD150 (the films on the campaigns supporting website are really well put together and add considerably to the experience) I would have bought it more, hence the first ad being more of a success. But then your stuck with getting the big shiny car shots for the client, as the brief was clearly designed to show off the new car.




So was 'difficult worth doing'? For 4Creative, yes and Wiedens, yes too. I the second will serve to jog peoples memory about the first ad/event and it was necessary to sell the new car as well. So overall the two ads work in harmony to raise brand profile and specifically sell the brands new product. I just felt slightly deflated after the second... but the website and lead up films are really cool.