Friday, 13 March 2009

sAD or glAD

Advertising... I am not so keen on it. I find that the process of creating an ad strips away all the creativity from it. There are roles very specified, designer does their job on newest Mac and the creatives do the thinking bit, artworkers prepare things for print, talking to the client happens mainly via accountants. All that speeds the process up, and in a way there is less mistakes happening, as everybody does simply what they were trained for. It seems perfect like a well designed machine. It is well paid and trendy.

I don't like it, as I like the mistakes bit in work. Going back and forth choosing options and discovering. I feel that when I am working on an email creation for a well known bank I am just sitting and yawning. It doesn't do it for me.

And what's more it is judged by research. If people buy, the ad works if they don't it sucks. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the typography, graphic composition, idea (if any), illustration, and so on. Though it happen to be most often strongly remembered part of our day. Ad in the tube, commercial on TV.

What is a key to produce a good ad? It is a good client. A client who likes risk and design is not a secondary option for him, he doesn't behave as if he knew better. Famous for that is CocaCola, Sony, Honda, the Economist...
In the hands of a good client is a fate of the ad. Will it be glAD or will it be sAD?

No comments: