Max, Dan, Jerry – 2012’s out-performers

December 14, 2012

League tables of achievement are as commonplace as turkeys right now. Why burden you with another one? Well, I’ve been asked to – by the good folk at More About Advertising. So:

Ad of the Year. Yes, I liked BBH’s “The 3 Little Pigs” and Creative Artist Agency’s Cannes Chipotle winner. Also, Del Campo Nazca Saatchi & Saatchi’s work for – of all improbable B2C clients – air-conditioning specialist BGH. Of which this, directed by Juan Cabral, is the latest instance:

As MAA’s Stephen Foster puts it – “bleakly comic”.

My favourite, though, was “Follow the Frog”, a quirky satire of the desk-bound yuppie eco-warrior fantasising about making the World A Better Place. Writer, director, copywriter, art director is Max Joseph – clearly a bit of an Orson Welles in the making. The commercial was produced by Wander Films, a creative boutique in Los Angeles. The moral? You don’t need to go to the ends of the earth to save the rainforest. Just Follow the Frog by buying kitemark-certified Rainforest Alliance products. They’ll do all the ethical heavy-lifting for you: sustain the forests, uphold socially equitable farming methods, and guarantee that what you buy is economically viable:

It’s long – but isn’t nearly everything these days? The measure of the made-for-internet film is not its length, but how well it sustains our interest. On this criterion Follow the Frog succeeds very well. It’s got a good tale to tell, is directed with panache and enlivened by bold use of graphics. Oh, and it uses gentle humour to camouflage the piety of its evangelical message. Yes “Siri”, it get’s my vote.

Agency of the Year. I won’t beat about the bush: it’s got to be Wieden & Kennedy. International networks frequently produce isolated instances of brilliance (Del Campo being an example within the Saatchi organisation). Exceptional work, simultaneously executed on a number of fronts, is another matter. To take an investment analogy, W&K is a momentum stock outperforming in all its main markets. Whether that’s Clint fronting for Chrysler at the Super Bowl:

… London winning the £110m Tesco account – but also producing some of the most interesting creative work since “Grrr”:

Or Amsterdam’s slick spoof for the latest James Bond film, which neatly segues into its current Heineken campaign:

Person of the Year. Tempting to mention the name of Joel Ewanick, isn’t it? No one can be said to have made a bigger splash in the world of marketing over the past year. Arguably, however, the now-dismissed chief marketing officer of General Motors made headlines for all the wrong reasons. A change agent he certainly was, but were any of his changes for the good? And what sort of permanence will they have? We hacks miss him, but I suspect the wider marketing community will not.

Jerry BuhlmannInstead of anti-hero, therefore, I’ve plumped for a gritty go-getter: marketing services’ answer to Daniel Craig. Like Craig, he certainly wouldn’t be everyone’s first choice as the archetypal smooth operator. But his coolness under fire cannot be doubted. Step forward Jerry Buhlmann, chief executive of Aegis Group plc. If there is one thing archetypal about Jerry, it’s that he’s a self-made media man. He started off in the “five to one” slot, in other words the lowest of the low in the full-service agency hierarchy, at Young & Rubicam in 1980. Nine years later, he was setting up his his own media-buying outfit BBJ – along with ultimately less successful Nick Brien and the downright obscure Colin Jelfs. BBJ – nowadays Vizeum – though successful (it handled for example the BMW account) was originally a “second-string” shop for conflicted WCRS media. Buhlmann’s career really took off when WCRS’s Peter Scott had the inspired idea of acquiring Carat – Europe’s largest media buyer – and floating off the combined operation as a separate stock market entity, rechristened Aegis. Buhlmann and his company were soon swallowed up by the independent media specialist, which offered him much wider career opportunities.

But was he a man capable of capitalising on them? While no one has ever doubted Buhlmann’s single-minded ambition to succeed, a lot have wondered whether he had the competence to do so. Yes, he had a mind like a calculator and razor-sharp commercial acumen, but where, oh where, were those human skills no less essential for making it to the top of the corporate pile? There was much mirth in the senior reaches of the media industry when Buhlmann got his first big break as head of Aegis Media EMEA in 2003. “It’s like William Hague trying to emulate Margaret Thatcher” was a typical response to his promotion. Then, as later, Buhlmann’s critics completely underestimated his ability to learn on the job. When he became group chief executive in 2010, the reception was scarcely less friendly. The master of ‘focus’ and ‘detail’ was incapable of taking the broader view vital to successfully running a publicly-quoted company, it was said. And then there was Jerry’s far-from-diplomatic demeanour: how long before he rubbed the City up the wrong way and had to be dispensed with?

It wasn’t as if Aegis was an easy company to run, either. As a (near) pure-bred media specialist, it was susceptible to squalls in the media every time the inevitable financial scandal broke. Inevitable, because media buying and peculation are bedfellows and peculation distorts financial performance – meaning in Aegis’ case it had to resort to highly public mea culpas every now and then. Other major media outfits, by contrast, have been able to rely on defence in depth from the much bigger marketing services organisations to which they belong.

Not only that, Aegis’s card was marked as a public company. For years, it laboured under the strain of being a takeover or break-up target. The strain became nightmarish when Vincent Bolloré, the shareholder from hell, took a strategic stake in Aegis and began engineering a series of boardroom coups.

Some of the credit for Aegis’ eventual soft-landing – a 50%-premium, £3.2bn cash deal with Dentsu, sealed last June  – must go to Aegis chairman John Napier. But that still leaves a lot owing to Buhlmann himself. Not only did he keep all the plates spinning in difficult circumstances, he also demonstrated a strategic clarity which eluded his predecessors. He ruthlessly pruned the company of its lower-margin research operation (by disposing of Synovate to Ipsos), but at the same time bolstered its pure-play media-buying profile with the geographical add-on of Mitchell Communications.

Not a bad result, all in all, for the man once dubbed the king of the second-string.

Advertisements

The Epica Awards: Whatever happened to the 30-second ad?

December 7, 2012

EpicaYou don’t have to look far for this year’s Big Theme in the Epica creative advertising awards. After 25 years as a Eurocentric awards scheme, with a nod now and then to the wider EMEA hinterland, Epica finally went global, welcoming entries from the dynamic emerging markets of Brazil, Argentina, India and China – not to mention the biggest creative challenger of the lot, the USA.

A recalibration of award winners – agencies, networks and countries – was only to be expected. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that three out of the top four awards – the Epica d’Or or grand prix –  went to countries that had never before won a grand prix.

What didn’t change was the judging principle. Epica is unique in representing the choice not of the creative community itself but of experienced journalists drawn from trade magazines in over 24 countries. I would not wish to give the impression that their judgement has been skewed by an influx of jurors from the new world, because that would be entirely untrue. The panel remains, for now at least, what it has always been: essentially European. The new challenge is the enlarged scope of their perspective.

Enough of the preamble. Who got the big prize? That’s normally taken to mean the film Epica d’Or. And the answer is: a total outsider from Denmark. When I say ‘total’, I mean total: the campaign was produced not by an agency, but by the in-house communications team of coach operator Midttrafik. Simply stated, the problem with coach travel is it appeals to the head, not the heart. It offers a no-nonsense, value-for-money alternative to other modes of transport, but “cool” it is not. The creative solution proferred by Midttrafik is a piece of burlesque called “The Bus” that humorously highlights coach travel’s unglamorous practicalities: comfy seats, panoramic views, acres of space, 24/7 availability, special bus lanes, and experienced, reliable drivers who take the strain. See the film a couple of times and you too will be saying, “Ja, still cool,” and “Yeah. Din es ‘street'” with a Danish accent. Watch out for the young guy on an orange motocross bike: his expression is a treat.

While the campaign creatives may be amateurs, direction and production are slickly professional. Step forward Marc Wilkins/RARE and M2Film respectively, who managed to make the whole thing on a budget – I’m told – of only €200,000. “The Bus” also took top prize – as it must do to qualify for the Epica d’Or, a gold – in the transport & tourism category.

Runner-up for the top prize – and also winner of the corporate image category – was Marcel Publicis’s epic “Cartier Odyssey”. Filmed with icy majesty, it is a lapidary hommage to the life of Louis Cartier on the occasion of his 165th birthday (165th? Don’t ask why – we’re talking high fashion here) which deploys the watchmaker and jeweller’s iconic panther as its leitmotif. Beautiful – and yet there is a chilly emptiness at its heart. What exactly is the point of this 3 minute 30 second historical travelogue, supposedly made for the cinema?

For my money a good overall winner would have been “Follow the Frog”, devised by the Rainforest Alliance and Los Angeles agency Wander. But it was scored in the public interest category, which by definition excludes it from consideration for the top film or print prizes. The Rainforest logo is a kind of kite mark, reassuring consumers that the product in question has signed up to a prescribed set of environmental standards. The campaign – long enough for cinema but meant for viral –  needs little other explanation. As you will see:

Long, isn’t it? Indeed, if there is a general criticism of this year’s film crop – which is considerably better than last year’s – it is encapsulated in the word “overblown” – too long, too self-indulgent and too reliant upon humour. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about from Canal+ and BETC, “The Bear” – which won the direction and cinematography category and was a runner-up in media:

It’s a mini-film in its own right, which is all very well if you’re the next Ridley Scott with designs on Hollywood. But whatever happened to the discipline of the 30-second spot? Well, it’s here, in this Aldi/McCann Manchester offering (actually 20 seconds long). Not new, I know – but as a seam of inspiration it’s seemingly inexhaustible. It won gold in the confectionery & snacks category:

Print winners: what can I say without a despairing note in my voice? It’s a fading format, with one or two redemptive examples of excellence. The overall winner this year – a first from Finland – was McDonald’s “Large Coffee”, devised by DDB Helsinki:

McDonald's

It’s probably better as a candidate for the outdoor prize, but no matter. That went to the Microloan Foundation’s “Pennies for Life”, devised by DLKW Lowe. Think wishing-well meets poster in an innovative digital format and you’re half-way there. Microloan is a charity that supports women in Africa setting up their own business. The idea is that you contribute virtual spare pennies via your smart phone, and watch the digitally-generated poster image take shape as the coffers swell:

Microloan

While on the subject of outdoor, one of the cleanest examples of the genre was “Stop Trying”, a gold winner in the household category devised by Herezie (a French agency) for Vapona. Not desperately original, but classic: strong, simple colourful imagery is complemented with unmistakable branding in the bottom right-hand corner. Brownie points to Herezie for pulling it off in a difficult, low-interest category:Flyswatter

And finally…

  • Germany once again topped the rankings, with a total of 66 awards, including 9 gold winners.
  • Britain moved up from fourth to second, at the expense of France and Sweden, which were third and fourth respectively. It won 56 awards but an unsurpassed 13 golds.
  • Top agencies were Jung von Matt Hamburg, with 16 awards (including two golds), followed by last year’s winner Forsman & Bodenfors, Gothenburg, which captured 10 awards and two golds.
  • Most successful network was DDB, with one Grand Prix and 8 golds. Next in line were Leo Burnett and Publicis Worldwide.
  • More on the awards here.

Tim Mason – end of the road for the other half of the Tesco dynamic duo

December 6, 2012

Tim Mason, former chief executive of Tesco's Fresh & EasyChief executive Philip Clarke’s ruthless dispatch of his number two, Tim Mason, is a final reminder – if any were needed – that the past is another country, so far as Tesco is concerned. They did things differently there; they will never do them the same again.

Eventually, someone had to pay the price for Tesco’s enormous strategic folly in setting up – from scratch – the ironically-named Fresh & Easy retail venture in California. One thousand stores were promised in 2006, when the initiative was hatched; 200 have actually opened and nothing but a £1bn loss has been banked. By rights, the faulty judgement was Sir Terry Leahy’s (as he himself has admitted). But Leahy has long since departed as chief executive; while Mason fronted it and is still very much in the public eye. Mason offered to conduct the strategic review into Tesco’s US operation himself, but Clarke needed a scapegoat and declined the offer. Mason had to go.

Arguably, however, Mason set himself up for a fall with his own poor judgement call in 2006. He should never have allowed Leahy to prevail upon him to undertake mission impossible in the first place. The USA – even in the heady early noughties – was widely perceived to be a graveyard for aspirant UK retail brands. Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury and several others had broken their back on the same reef – and paid the price in years of dysfunction. But Tesco, at the time, was in the grip of advanced corporate hubris: as the head of world’s most successful retailer, Leahy was convinced he would be the one to buck the trend.

And who better to lead the vanguard than his most trusted lieutenant, Mason? Mason and Leahy were the dynamic duo at the heart of Britain’s most successful retail story. Leahy was the sharp business brain, and Mason the marketing man with an uncanny, intuitive feel for what the customer wanted. Together they had not only assured Tesco’s dominance in the UK retail market, but put an unchallengeable distance between Tesco and all its competitors – encapsulated in a single, extraordinary, statistic: By 2005 £1 in every £8 spent in Britain’s shops went to Tesco.

The feverish back-story to all this success was more disquieting. What would happen, in the not-too-distant future, when Leahy retired? Leahy clearly supposed that Mason could make the leap from marketing to corporate leadership that he himself had so effortlessly executed. Mason, who joined Tesco in 1982 and had headed marketing since 1997, was desperate to prove him right, and eagerly clutched the poisoned chalice of Fresh & Easy.

The transition fatally upset the balance of power at Tesco. Mason may have had his fair share of bad luck in California, but his operations skills were clearly inferior to those of Leahy. With the result that, as US losses inexorably mounted, he was passed over when the succession issue finally came to the fore. Not only that. Mason’s marketing nous was sorely missed back home, just when Tesco’s UK operation most needed it.

When Mason – then group marketing chief – decamped to America, he took with him his head of UK marketing Simon Uwins. Their UK successors lacked finesse. High turnover of subsequent personnel did not help. But something other than stability was missing – that old Tesco marketing magic. Marketing became too formulaic, and too sales-obsessed.

While Tesco struggled to find a new compass-bearing in post-recession Britain, it let its competition off the back foot. Asda, Sainsbury’s and Safeway (now recast as Morrisons) began to catch up. The Tesco offer, by contrast, began to look tired and over-extended (particularly in non-groceries). The retail behemoth was engaged on too many fronts at once and it showed – in declining profits and advertising campaigns that lacked the common touch.

Would this have happened if Mason had actually been chief marketing officer in more than name? That’s the thing about subjunctive history – we will never know. An easier lesson to draw from the Mason story is one about symbiotic work relationships. Corporate success is rarely the product of a unique talent. Would Mason and Leahy in their heyday ever have succeeded to the extent they did without each other? I suspect they would not.


Sodastream ad controversy bubbles on

December 5, 2012

Sodastream adWhatever are the people at Sodastream complaining about? Having their ad pulled from television by the donkeys at Clearcast, the TV advertising vetting service, is a gift. It’s the sort of thing Rupert Howell and his team at HHCL used to have wet dreams about – the possibility of the regulator stepping in and banning their latest offering for Tango. Think of the attendant publicity, a priceless multiple of the original advertising budget.

And all the more so in Sodastream’s case. Back then, in the Tango era, YouTube and the viral were waiting to be discovered. What’s more Sodastream seems to have a case based upon rectitude rather than meretricious provocation. Any reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have difficulty in understanding the legitimacy of Clearcast’s complaint. Judge for yourselves:

What I see in this ad is each squirt of Sodastream saving you (and the environment) the cost of thousands of eco-unfriendly glass bottles a year. The claim is a trifle exaggerated perhaps, unless that squirt is a metaphorical one signifying a year’s usage of the soda-water maker, but its basis is surely unexceptionable. To any, that is, but those sitting in judgement at Clearcast, which represents the 5 major UK commercial TV companies.

And which bit of the governing Code of Advertising Practice (CAP), do the regulators believe Sodastream has transgressed? Well not, interestingly, 3.12   “Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.” No, they’ve gone for:  3.42  “Advertisements must not discredit or denigrate another product, advertiser or advertisement or a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark.”

Come again? Let’s look at that ad, in slow motion. Where’s the “product, advertiser or advertisement or a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark”  – unless that last be a glass bottle? I’m one with Fiona Hope – the former Coke executive ultimately in charge of Sodastream’s UK advertising – here: it’s very hard to see how Clearcast, and subsequently its appeal committee, a) arrived at the notion that the ad “denigrates” the bottled drinks industry; and b) in what way article 3.42 of CAP is relevant justification for that view. Oddest of all is the fact that nowhere else in the world has the Sodastream campaign, devised by Alex Bogusky’s new advertising vehicle Common, fallen foul of the regulatory authorities.

One possible explanation for Clearcast’s bizarre behaviour is that the advisory committee suspected Bogusky of mounting a veiled assault on Coca-Cola – no small TV advertiser. As is well known, Bogusky – the former “B” in CP+B – was once creative servitor of the Coke Zero account. Now the breakaway wunderkind – and healthy-living freak – seems intent on war to the knife against his former paymaster. Note, for instance, this recent video for the Center for Science in the Public Interest that pillories Coke in all but name.

Clearcast, as a matter of tactics, would surely have been better advised to let the Sodastream ad air and allow the “bottled drinks industry” (whatever that may be) to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority – the proper forum for this kind of debate. Instead, the stubborn intransigence of its appeals committee has left Clearcast staked out in an indefensible Alamo.

Roll on Hope’s legal challenge to Clearcast’s judgement. Whichever way it goes, Sodastream can be confident of acres of free publicity – which should help UK sales no end.


Witch-hunt against corporate tax dodgers can damage jobs, as well as brands

December 3, 2012

StarbucksThere’s a grave danger that the witch-hunt against global brands who fail to pay their “fair share” of UK corporation tax will boomerang on the political class that has instigated it.

Google, Amazon and Starbucks have been chief whipping boys in an excoriating grilling by the powerful parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, headed by former Labour government minister Margaret Hodge. They are but the frontline of a phalanx of household multinational names – eBay, Facebook and Ikea prominent in the second rank – which are being prepped for humiliation in the court of public opinion. And behind the PAC’s bullying is a fully complicit Treasury – its head, George Osborne, desperately aware that falling corporation tax is contributing to the ruin of his re-election strategy.

Of course, what these brands are up to is hardly ethically defensible. To quote but a few examples, and bearing in mind that UK corporation tax on larger companies is currently levied at 24% of profits: Google claims to have a global profit margin of 33%, but its UK unit paid only £3.4m in tax last year; Starbucks paid just £8.6m on 13-year UK turnover of £3.1bn; Amazon’s UK tax bill last year was £1.8m on reported sales of £207m; and in 2010 eBay paid £1.2m in tax on UK sales of £800m.

Not the stuff of sincere corporate citizenry, and – consumer brands being peculiarly vulnerable to criticism – these companies are deservedly squirming as the rock is lifted from their unedifying activities.

But because we don’t like their behaviour that doesn’t make it illegal. Tax avoidance is something we would all get up to, if we had an army of tax accountants at our disposal. And maximising profits is one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism, as germane to the micro-entrepreneur as the multinational corporation. What hurts is the unfairness of it all. We small folk must contend with HMRC harassment, escalating fines and a brutal bailiff when we don’t pay our tax bills; big corporations, by contrast, merely cut a highly advantageous deal with the UK tax authorities who, to all appearances, are sycophantically grateful for anything they are given.

Margaret HodgeSo, what politicians are doing here is stoking the politics of envy: pitting the grievance of the many against the privilege of the few. It’s an easy populist game to play and amounts to a form of blackmail. You, Amazon, Starbucks et al, pay up or we will whip up a consumer boycott against you. Already, Osborne’s deputy, Danny Alexander, is “abstaining” from Starbucks coffee (although, in fact, admitting to only drinking tea) and Hodge (above) has knocked Amazon off her Christmas shopping list. How they’re going to hit Google in the googlies I’m not too sure, but the elements of a national campaign are there. Starbucks, for one, is already buckling and (in the words of the inevitable headline) waking up and smelling the coffee.

But wait. Enormously satisfying though this condign corporate punishment may be, could it not become a little, well, counter-productive if the trend really takes wing? Corporation tax, even if levied at the notional statutory level, makes – or would make – a fairly small contribution to the Exchequer when weighed against the other, less high-profile, benefits these companies bring to the national economy. Profitable companies create jobs, and the people who occupy these jobs pay income tax and national insurance contributions, which are of vastly greater importance as tax receipts. Though no economist, I’m tolerably certain that anyone who did the modelling would find that  “zero-tolerance” enforcement of higher-level corporation tax is inversely related to job creation.

As for stirring up a consumer boycott, it’s merely killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Politicians, have a care.


Greed not marketing to blame for lack of trust in banks

December 1, 2012

Rich-Ricci-barclay_2266097bMy eye recently alighted upon the following headline in Marketing magazine: “Marketing ‘to blame’ for lack of trust in banks”. The article went on to say: “Senior banking executives have argued that marketing is to blame for the breakdown of consumer trust in financial services brands.”

Extraordinary. Bank officials in self-inculpation shock. I read on, avid for fresh enlightenment about the real roots of the 2008 global banking crisis. And was disappointed.

It turned out that the subs, in their eternal quest for the succinct and memorable, had been a little too sharp with their headline. The only bank marketer actually shouldering any of the responsibility was David Wheldon, now rejoicing in the title of head of brand, reputation and citizenship at Barclays Bank: and he, in any case, is a recent import from Vodafone. Furthermore, what Wheldon actually said was pretty anodyne:

“Marketing has let financial services down… The voice of customers has not been ever-present in decisions, and marketing must bring the voice of society to the table. A brand is what a brand does, and how you behave in the wider world forms whether you’re seen as a good citizen.”

Nevertheless, I think the subs unwittingly raised a very good question. To what extent has marketing been responsible for the banking crisis?

Not very much, I would suggest, when compared in the scales with systematic mis-selling and its parent, corrupt corporate culture.

The paradox about bank marketing is that, despite the vast budgets put at its disposal, no one takes very much notice of it. There are a variety of reasons for this: among them, overblown corporate claims unsusceptible to real analysis; phoney discounted interest rates showered upon the bewildered would-be customer like confetti; the perception that banks act as a cartel and are extremely unlikely to break ranks for the sake of a genuine marketing initiative; and customer inertia, which makes bank management as resistant to change as their customers.

But perhaps the most compelling reason why bank marketing is a study in failure is that the upper echelons of bank management don’t really believe in it themselves. Despite the eye-watering financial packages senior bank marketers command (when compared to industry benchmarks), only half-jokingly are they referred to as “heads of flower arrangement”; in effect they are of middling rank in the bank hierarchy. Top executives have rather more important things to worry about than the latest lick of corporate paint or flowers in the shop window. Things like the international money markets, their bonus structure, and, er, Libor.

Much more insightful on the breakdown of trust between the banks and the public than Wheldon et al speaking at the Marketing Society conference is Richard Ricci’s recent performance before a parliamentary committee. Ricci (image above, doing a passable imitation of a spiv at the races) has just been appointed head of Barclays’ investment operation. His predecessor was turfed out over the Libor scandal (for which the bank was fined £290m last June) and he has been entrusted the hapless task of cleansing the Augean stables after all the horses have bolted. Pressed hard on why he thought the banks had failed society, he admitted that they been allowed to put too much emphasis upon employee incentives to the exclusion of all other considerations:

At the top of the house, the industry, and I would say at times Barclays, was skewed maybe too much towards the financial performance and not enough towards the other areas. And so one of the pieces of work we’re doing is trying to get that balanced scorecard right around appraisals, around reward, to get all those interests aligned properly.

Greed, not marketing. Enough said.


Zombie epidemic infects adland

December 1, 2012

imagesI’m deeply indebted to the international Epica creative advertising awards – on which I served as a juror – for giving me nightmares. Every year, the awards betray certain cultural themes – performing dogs, hyper-animated babies, whatever – that have successfully invaded the collective unconscious of the creative community. This year, alas, it is Zombie Apocalypse, in which an epidemic number of the flesh-eating undead manage to bring society as we know it to its knees.

Here’s one particularly absurd example of the genre, which didn’t in fact make the prize-grade. It’s called “CPR makes you undead” and hails from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Yes, you read right.  The premise? You’re a survivor in a post-Apolcalyptic landscape and you have a cardiac arrest – after, as it happens, catching sight of an army of hungry Zombies coming your way. Well, who wouldn’t? But wait, here’s the twist. The Zombie is your friend, the one who calls 911 for a (non-existent) ambulance and proceeds to carry out emergency resuscitation. After all, what use are you to a Zombie if you’re actually dead?

“Regardless of age, everyone can benefit from the lesson embedded in humor in the video,” H&SFC director of health promotion and public affairs Mark Holland tells us, “As zombies covet only the living, they need to move quickly to bring cardiac arrest victims back to life. We all should do the same.” He truly is having a laugh isn’t he? After watching this, you might prefer to be dead.

Have no fear, though: civilised society is fighting back with every manner of golf club, fishing rod, tennis racket and football that Norwegian sports equipment supplier XXL can furnish:

This commercial (my thanks to Messrs Stephen Foster and George Parker; I’m assured it’s a direct rip-off from Shaun of the Dead) has just been banned on Norwegian TV prime time after a Facebook campaign of vilification. Apparently, it’s “stupid and provocative”. Not to mention derogatory to the human rights of zombies. If they have any.

Most disturbing by far, however, is this gory viral for ZombiU – a survival horror video game which leans heavily upon the freeze-frame reveal technique used with such great effect by Philips’ “Carousel” Cannes winner a few years back. “ZombiU” won Ubisoft, which edited it, a gold in Epica’s Animation category. Arguably it’s most haunting element is the soundtrack…

Happy dreams everyone. And more on the other Epica winners anon.


%d bloggers like this: