![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Monday, May 22, 2006
"they call it a spot. we call it a stain." ![]() That's what Wadard says about the Competitive Enterprise spot we posted about on Friday. Wadard comments on the post, and points to a script they've written over at Global Warming Watch for a counter-ad. They're seeking a production budget, to produce the spot. The script is fantastic:
While I would absolutely love for the above spot to be produced (if you can do that, please contact the people at Global Warming Watch), I believe that the Competitive Enterprise spot does more damage than good. The premise is so ridiculous, that when I happened upon it last week, I thought it was a hoax - produced by environmental activists, to make "big oil" look silly. It's not hoax, and the organization behind it believes in the message. Regardless of your political or environmental beliefs here, the Competitive Enterprise spot sucks. It's so unbelievable - and so poorly produced - that it actually detracts from their cause. The Global Warming Watch spot featured above however, is outstanding creative that delivers a believable message. A case study in bad vs. good. Advertising, of course.
posted by darryl ohrt @ 9:36 AM
1 comments
1 Comments: |
![]() ![]()
![]()
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks Darryl, much appreciated.