What The Hell Were They Thinking, #2

By / October 15, 2007 /

In this new running series, called “What The Hell Were They Thinking,” we’ll randomly pull a piece of work from one of the agencies in town, post it and then allow you to attempt to dissect the thinking that went into its creation.

Our second selection is this print ad promoting the Butterfly Pavilion.

Comments

Gregg October 15, 2007

At the core, there’s an idea

At the core, there’s an idea here. Frogs eat bugs. We have lots of bugs. Therefore, a haven for bug-eaters. Problem is it’s just too heavy handed in its execution. And that “no” symbol just gots ta go.
AppleZ October 15, 2007

Just another anti-French ad.

Just another anti-French ad.
Randall Erkelens October 16, 2007

That’s reassuring. I was

That’s reassuring. I was worried I’d run into a tail-less amphibian if I went there. Now I know they don’t admit the little Salientias. That’s a relief.

The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to suarctic regions, with most species are found in tropical rainforests. And last time I went into the Butterfly Pavillion, it felt like a moist tropical broadleaf forest.. you know their kind.. high rainfall, alhtough it’s fake at the BP… poor soil leaching of soluble nutrients, etc. Seems ripe for a frog infestation.
RE October 16, 2007

On further inspection.. frogs

On further inspection.. frogs aside.. (btw, Jay Roth is a frog lover)… I couldn’t figure-out the period on the subhead when the headline is missing one. Prolly could lose it.. And the Casablanca (or look-alike) reminds me of the ’80s.. I should know.. they just called and want their shoes and hairstyle back.
d October 16, 2007

My son is 5. He loves this.

My son is 5. He loves this.
B October 16, 2007

I’m not so sure about the

I’m not so sure about the idea of doing a column like this. At least the comments on this edition of the column are more constructive and thoughtful than those from the first one that went up, but I don’t see how anonymously ripping into someone else’s work is in any way a benefit to those who created it or to our Denver ad community as a whole.

It’s easy to throw rocks at others and be a critic—especially an anonymous critic. It’s doing consistently great work that’s tough. And it seems to me that we’d all benefit a great deal more from some mutual encouragement and celebration of each other’s hard work, rather than picking on someone and trying to knock them down a peg.

But, maybe that’s why I’m not the Egotist.
David Stone October 18, 2007

I’d simplify this ad. 1) You

I’d simplify this ad. 1) You don’t need to see the frog since you’ve already mentioned it in the headline. 2) You don’t need to say “just you” as that’s understood. 3) Ixnay on the “no” symbol. 4) Take out “at the” in the address.

Try getting the ad down to just the essential elements you need to convey the idea. Work towards the fewest moving parts. Hope that helps. Good luck and have fun.
senstivewriter#287163 October 18, 2007

Um, do we really need to

Um, do we really need to point out what’s wrong with any ad that elicits constructive criticism that includes the phrases “bug-eater” and “frog-lover” ?
M.P. October 22, 2007

So weak it’s not even worth

So weak it’s not even worth commenting on – er, oops…
Jessica November 21, 2007

I haven’t been there, but

I haven’t been there, but I’ve heard the Pavilion is really beautiful, stunning and amazing (so my mother-in-law says) but all this ad says to me is “ICKY!” – capture the essence of a place like that to draw in the moms with kiddies that want them to have a memorable experience. not tongue-in-cheek goofy humor (no pun intended).