Weekly Ad Uncoiling: Which Visual is Wronger?
Advertising copywriters and art directors are always looking for the never-before-seen visual twist to sell a product; it’s what we live for (well that, and the gifts/ass-sucking of media reps). But sometimes, in the holy quest to be Cannes Gold Lion original, ad creatives shutdown their left cerebral hemisphere and lose their fucking minds.
It’s easy to follow the creative brief thought process here: “Toilet Duck gets your shitter so clean…it (blankity blank blank blank).” It’s a perfectly acceptable toilet cleaner strategy. However, showing a woman using a hopper to wash her face is not an acceptable dramatization—I don’t care how long or bristly her toilet brush is. This image (click here for closer look) has to immediately turn off a large portion of potential buyers, yes? At best, she is getting harsh chemical residue in her eyes/mouth/nose. At worst… Now, I’d personally have no problem washing my face in my toilet, if I had no other choice. But remember, I’m obsessed with commodes…
This ad (click here for closer look), via Colombia, is…bizarre. It’s for Nutrecan senior dog food. And that is a blow-up sex dog doll, complete with blowjob mouth. I really don’t need/want to see the rear view. You can kinda feel your way to wtf the ad agency was thinking here: the sex dog doll is for “adult” dogs only, as is this dog food. But, throwing some logic into the dog pound for a sec, canines wouldn’t be interested in a sex dog doll. Only humans (and primates) stick their willies into plastic holes. Plus…why are you attempting to sell dog food with a SEX DOG DOLL? OK. So, which visual is wronger? Tell me, Coilhousers!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
99 francs (or whatever it sells in english speaking countries) was very nice parody of what goes inside the minds of copywriters when reaching for the golden lion.
I recommend it whole heartetly to all Coilhouse readers, it’s easy and fun read and still offers something to think about.
I liked the later of these two better, first is kind of regural image until you get the context. The second is straight slap to the face! Sex Doll Dog for the epic win!
November 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Seconded. It’s that flirty dog pout. It frightens me.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go_VtqtxCHY
“Truth In Advertising” ;)
But, yeah. The sex doll dog wins for wrongity-wrongitude!
— A o__O
November 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Both are questionable, though the second has less logic to it, therefore more wtf, yet can never beat this:
In accordance with Megan’s Law, I have nothing to say about this photo.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
foxtongue, that’s insane!
Is that actually little girl with tons of makeup, or a Gemma Ward-like model? I’m confused!
November 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
foxtongue:
Yes, I believe that’s generally recognized by ad blogs as THE wrongest visual in ad history.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
The second is mightily the scarier of the two, but Foxtongue’s image above takes the terrorcake.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
What worries me? That freakin’ dog exists somewhere.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Yupp.. someone out there probably already has done that:( I sometimes hate rule 36 (of the internet). And how did anyone think that making that cosmeticsl ad was even remotely a good idea?
November 13th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Ack! The ad that Foxtongue posted with shown in a Women’s Studies class I took in Uni, and it’s always stuck with me. Bleck.
I, too, vote for sex-toy-dog as the greater of the two ad evils in this post..but can you imagine how hard the people who made that thing laughed? I’m thinking a whole lotta cell phone pictures got taken in that department that day.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Heee. Yeah, that Love’s Baby Soft ad is infamous.
Speaking of… COPYRANTER, have you ever watched the old “Sex Education for Trainables” video from the 70s?
November 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
That dog is the wrongest thing in Wrongtown. I had to cover my puppy’s eyes.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Dog.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I’d have to say the 2nd, only because of the fact that it’s a sex dog doll! WTF? indeed.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Dog ad, definately the dog.
Worst part is, you know that someone has seen that ad and actually hunted one of those things down for that purpose.
ACK!
November 14th, 2008 at 4:15 am
The dog! But the ad foxtongue posted is obviously terribly wrong!
November 14th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Mer:
I had not, but now I have:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJpczeKtpmI
“a girl has three holes between her legs…”
thanks. I learned a hole bunch in that 7 minutes.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Nadyda,
I’ve always been of the opinion that either way, (or even if it’s an illustration), I sort of don’t want to ask. If that’s a photo, that girl is out there somewhere, perpetually haunted.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Hey, we do what we have to do…and doing it with dogs is not one of those things. Oh, you know what I mean. The dog one. Way wrong.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
No 1 def most disturbing. Wrong on every level. Wrongest.
No2 is just a visual joke. Thinking too deep gets you into dog-toy-fucking territory. So stay light and superficial and what you have is a very cheeky visual pun. Dogs neither read ads not buy dog food, and I’ll bet owners of senior dogs will remember the name of this brand. And that’s un-wrong.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Dog’s don’t buy their own food. Their owners do. Therefore the advertisement team appealed to the dog OWNERS who would associate aging with decreased sexual ability with the “not so subliminal” message that this food will give your dog his youthful.. “pep” if you will.
It’s FUNNY not wrong geez.. :)
November 14th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I thought it was funny too, but does it work for the brand? An hour after seeing the ad, I could remember the dog, I could remember the wallpaper, but I couldn’t, for the life or me, remember the name of the brand. Maybe that’s because I’m not used to shopping for dog food. But I have to say… I actually do think the ad is fun.
By the way, just in case anyone’s interested, I couldn’t find the dog, but here’s a sheep (“the Love Ewe”):
http://www.muttonbone.com/
I only know that because we got one for my boss.
OK, and the Baby Soft ad is CREEEEEEEEEEEEEEPY. Does anyone know the history behind it? The brilliant agency that came up with this? Morbidly fascinated, I decided to do a little research, and didn’t find anything, except a hilarious comment on how this ad might’ve come to be, from this site.:
“1. Creepy Art Director get’s assigned to the Love’s Baby Soft account. Nobody notices that he doesn’t seem to upset about leaving Marlboro or Budweiser or Wrangler or Dodge Truck account that he was previously assigned to.
2. The brief is given, Creepy A.D. begins work. At home. At night. Alone.
3. Creeep A.D. presents his concepts to the client. He sells it as an image of a young lady who is made up like an adult female preparing for a night on the town. The headline reinforces the message. This concept delivers on the brief and everyone is pleased. Approved.
4. Creepy A.D. casts the shoot. “Younger, much younger” is the direction he gives after seeing the first round of headshots.
5. At the shoot, Creepy A.D. demands more make up. He’s weirding everyone out by saying things like “That’s perfect, very sexy” and “You look so hot”. Photographer wishes he didn’t need the money so bad becuase he is not feeling good about this at all.
6. Creepy A.D. is not happy. He’s not getting the shot he has in his mind. Something is missing. Ah yes, she needs a plush toy to make it perfect.
7. Finsihed ad is present to the client. The client is more interested in playing some golf and hitting the town with the Account Executive, so he barely looks at the ad and simply mutters “yeah, fine, go with it.”
8. Client gets fired becuase this ad is the worst thing ever. But, five minutes before he’s canned, he calls the agency and fires them. Immediately following that call, Creepy A.D. is called in to his bosses office and he is fired.
9. Creepy A.D. puts Love’s Baby Soft ad in his book as he is looking for work. He never works in advertising again.
10. Creepy (Former) A.D. get’s his ass kicked by the Father of the talent. And then by the photogapher. And then by the head of the agency. And then by the Father again. And then by…”
November 14th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The dog… Paws down.
Wow! Did you get that? Maybe I’ll become a copywriter!
November 15th, 2008 at 1:02 am
I’m disturbed by the size of that toilet. There’s some junk in that trunk.
November 15th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Oh, I think you should all get out a bit more, dears. I’ve been washing my face in the toilet for years and my complexion is like a baby’s bottom, unwiped of course. And the dog? Since buying one I can’t live without my little Spot, frankly. How can you say it’s wrong? You didn’t notice that she’s a bitch?
November 15th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Dog, no contest.
Why? Because those aren’t just EARS. Those are HAND-HOLDS, for better grip.
Someone actually took the time to design hand-holds on a dog sex doll.
No wonder our species can’t figure out how to solve world hunger.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
hahahaha! the “adult” ad kills me. it’s a historical case of ENGRISH.
November 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Pervy Doggie is BRILLIANT! That made my day.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Oh dear GOD! The dog! The dog! That thing hurt my soul. Then Seth goes and points out that the ears are actually hand holds and the ad just got 1000% wronger after that. So, so wrong…
November 18th, 2008 at 6:56 am
The toilet one is pretty insane, but the dog…well.. that is the kind of stuff that wants me to buy a trenchcoat and a shitload of weapons, butcher the personnel of a medium size advertising agency and write a completely disturbed yet catchy slogan on the wall with the blood of some copywriter right before I blow my brains out. Thank god I’m not creative.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I’m going with the first ad, it’s a human woman washing her face in a toilet.
The blow up dog thing is sick advertising actually in a funny way. Scary
But even worse was the little? girl and the tag line because innocence is sexier than you think. Directed at pedophiles and rapists.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Hi!dbps! http://rhjpbmlb.com ymfbt xecwj
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
On the subject of “Love’s Baby Soft”, I think we have a “Myopia” problem: We’re looking at this through 2008 eyes. Back when that ad was out there, I’m thinking, like 1973, we had never even HEARD of a pedophile, Amber alerts meant the light was going to change, and we SURE as hell didn’t have millions of morons wandering around with handheld devices clicking off 140 character messages to one another. There were a few “chester the molesters” out there, but they didn’t seem to be everywhere. This is also right after the “hippie” craze, and this form of “innocence” was still thought of as flower-girl ish. So the ad, wrong as it would be NOW, was appropriate and successful – THEN. Take me back to the seventies. At least I’d have a GOOD job…