The Ad Mad! - Creative Advertising, Art and Design blog

Ok, I had to share this.

We all know Animal Planet, nice channel to spend some time learning how monkeys steal or something…well, the thing is they changed their logo. And man, it is ugly. I tried to find a meaning (and they really had a lot of things to play with, I mean come on, animals!) but found nothing.

Does anybody see anything that would explain such a horrible change? Or is it simply a bad, bad logo?

Advertising Agency: Nitro, London, UK
Executive Creative Director: Paul Shearer
Creative Director: Paul Shearer
Art Director: Jess Oudot
Copywriter: Matt Leach
Executive Producer: Laura Gregory
Producer: Jeremy McWilliams
Director: Paul Shearer
Production Company: Bang/Great Guns
Editor: Ted Guard @ The Quarry

I was looking for a good Valentine’s Day ad to share, and ran into this one. Made me laugh, and I’m pretty sure all you guys will love it anyway

Advertising Agency: Leo Burnett, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Creative Director: Ruy Lindenberg
Art Director: Luis Catapano
Photographer: Dercílio Vanzelli

Leo Burnett in Sao Paulo created this piece. I didn’t know gum actually gave so much money to pay this kind of campaigns
Anyaway, I think it’s really nice use of the media, haven’t seen it before, and it must be certainly shocking to bump into it while reading.

Advertising Agency: BBDO WEST San Francisco, USA
Creative Director: Jim Lesser
Art Director: Reece Hoverkamp
Copywriter: Jack Harding
Illustrator: Anthony Clarkson
Published: January 2008

Some agencies usually are fine with just a good idea. But a good ad consist not only in a mind blowing concept, but also a perfect execution, making it as nice to look at as possible. This is a good example of an OK concept, but a really stylish and eye catching art direction.

I think in most cases the one part of the advert that’s better executed (concept or art direction) makes up for the other one…but can a good concept save an awful visual execution? or just a nice ilustration save a crappy concept?