How Long Does It Take Citalopram To Work

Physcicians In Phoenix For Hemmroids

When advertising sucks is not the fault of the advertisers and clients

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

C’è una tendenza in atto da qualche tempo, a voler stupire a tutti i costi. Vorrei qui proporre una riflessione sulla relazione tra tre concetti: stupore (noi pubblicitari parleremmo di impatto, mentre i clienti apostrofano questa espressione con “una campagna creativa”, come se quest’ultime non fossero mai esistite) effimero ed autoreferenziale, poiché un nesso tra le tre parole c’è ed è forte, ed è opportuno parlarne ancorché in tempi di cambiamento.
Stupire a tutti i costi è un compito della pubblicità? In barba alle più elementari regole e a quanto Ogilvy ci ha lasciato in eredità (già ma chi era costui che diceva: “non scrivere mai un annuncio che non faresti leggere alla tua famiglia. Non mentiresti a tua moglie e allora non farlo con la mia) mi pare che i pubblicitari (Although this looks like old-fashioned term, to professionals like communicators) have forgotten what is the role they have and what is the responsibility that they take to the purchaser and the consumer.
Now I know that this reasoning may seem anti-creative or sterilization may seem like a momentum that even the new technologies have generated all those who make a profession that has to do with communication, but there is a fundamental question that always communicated in an intimate or collective (just for the truth in bulk) arise and it has to do with work or not work.
Recently, some campaigns have been open to criticism from some municipalities. I refer to two recent cases: that of ATAC in Rome (Fig. 1) complaint that a campaign well done (quanno ce vo ce vo!) Sponsored by Current TV TV Al Gore; clothing company Relish Milan (Fig. 2) which has even sparked a diplomatic incident with Brazil (as if not more serious than most of Baptists), to which I add the provider of bathroom furnishings Bari (Fig. 3), not censored.

Some of these campaigns work, certainly more work for the noise they generate rather than to the teachings of Ogilvy and many other great Italian colleagues indicate that there has always been that communication is what builds that sells the brand. Others will smell works made to please those who conceived them and "cheat the customer," unfortunately not in his interest.
then whose fault is it when a campaign is ugly? I have no doubt, it is of those who conceived and those who approved it. What campaigns are those that do not build the brand, without a strong root of values, which delight the customer? What brands are those that offer some concepts / values? So no wonder that some governments exercise a complaint, though anachronistic, it seems like a re-educational function of the sender and recipient of the communication.