Tag Archive | CHANEL

SADvertising / Three sad, bad and/or depressing ads, feat. Timberland, McDonald’s and – yep, again – Chanel and Brad Pitt.

I was trying to find something uplifting and inspirational on the Internet, you know, one of those motivational things like “Hell Yeah It’s Friday!” that make us smile and think that everything is going to be fine because the weekend is here and friends are coming over and beers are going to fly and cats are all over the place, but for some strange reason, Twisted Sister Serendipity brought me to the Wasteland of Depressing Ads.

Here’s a fine selection of ads gone wrong.

I found this on Business Insider Australia: ‘McDonald’s In Australia Just Released A Series Of Really Depressing Ads’


(image courtesy of Business Insider Australia)

Then this appeared in my Facebook feed, and I felt even more depressed.


(image courtesy of Ads of the World)

Dulcis in fundo (last but not least, that is) while I was about to publish this post, my eye fell on the last article, featuring Brad Pitt (and his empty eyes) for Chanel, next to a pile of rubbish.


(image courtesy of the Internet)

Happy weekend.

What do you think?

London Web Agency Appnova – keep following us on Twitter @appnova and “like” us on Facebook for useful news and tasteful digressions about geeky stuff.

Has fashion become a senseless circus? Featuring weird ad campaigns, an extra thin Beyoncé and Karl Lagerfeld sporting a yellow safety vest.

Of course you have to consider new markets, BRIC, Russian taste, Chinese future customers, Brazilian trends, you constantly have to astonish and amaze, you need to go weird and arty and cutting-edge, you have to choose the right testimonial but at the same time you have to surprise your fans / followers / afinicionados / clientele, but, seriously, it looks like fashion brands are losing the plot. Big time.

Remember the what-is-going-on-here? Chanel ad starring a confused, mumbling Brad Pitt?


What about the Yeti-like pyjamas, courtesy of Chanel, once again?


Who’s Chanel’s controversial creative director, the man behind these bold moves? It’s Karl Lagerfeld! And he’s wearing a safety vest!

Meanwhile, Lady Gaga wears five kilos of sirloin steaks for Vogue.


The Telegraph reports: ‘Courtney Love joins fellow controversial rocker Marilyn Manson for the latest Saint Laurent campaign shot by creative director Hedi Slimane.’
So, Yves Saint Laurent – the man who said “I am no longer concerned with sensation and innovation, but with the perfection of my style” – meets Marilyn Manson, Honorary Priest of the Church of Satan? Yes, it’s perfectly fine.


Dolce & Gabbana’s new testimonial is Leo Messi. Yep. The female fan base screams FAIL! Look at the comments on their Facebook page.


Talking about social media backfire, apparently Roberto Cavalli is swimming in muddy waters, after the fashion designer published this sketch of Beyoncé, looking nothing like the real thing. Check the Facebook page for the usual stream of insults.


Russia: fashion is getting bigger and bigger, and ads are going weirder and weirder. Look at this masterpiece:

Finally, a smart fashion ad campaign. Oi, wait a sec, that’s a chocolate-flavoured drink ad! GENIUS.
From www.bestadsontv.com: ‘Arla Foods are launching Wing-co., a new chocolate flavoured drink designed for men, with a print campaign devised by CHI & Partners.

The campaign, which launches in press and 6$ from 3rd June, is a parody of over-masculine ‘Pour Homme’ fragrance advertising.

Shot by fashion photographer Matt Irwin, the ads show a rugged model performing exaggerated feats of manliness with nonchalance. He is a man, with added man. Be it balancing a huge tree trunk over one shoulder, carrying a full size live lioness or sitting in plus fours sporting a flamethrower, he remains unflustered.’


What do you think?
London Web Agency Appnova – keep following us on Twitter @appnova and “like” us on Facebook for useful news and tasteful digressions about geeky stuff.

Ads gone wrong / Brad Pitt + Chanel No 5 = AD-MAGEDDON.

Brad Pitt is confused.


We are confused.

Can ads be confusing? No.

Art and life in general can be confusing, but an ad should have a clear message, aimed at the right target, on the right channel, featuring the right ambassador.

Can a perfume ad be a stinker? That is the second question.

When it comes to the new Chanel No 5 ad, featuring Brad Pitt, the answer is, according to, well, everybody: YES.

Here is the infamous ad:

The consumer is confused.

And here’s a selection of comments, left on YouTube:

‘i wouldnt say it worked when it repells me from chanel no 5… Id rather wear my grandmas Oscar De La renta’

‘This sh*t makes no sense.’

‘…is that Channel No 5 for men now? Confused!!’

‘The Brad Pitt from Fight Club would punch this Brad Pitt in the face.’

Vox populi, vox Dei (“The voice of the people [is] the voice of God”)?

I believe there is no need here to explain what Chanel is and what it means to fashionistas, classy ladies, luxury aficionados and collective imagination in general.

Moreover, we talked about Brad and Chanel some time ago, in a post entitled ‘Luxury brands + Celebrity endorsement = Expensive WTF’.

But that was before the ad came out, i.e. before things could get from WTF to disaster, like they did.

The Internet is confused.

Is that Brad Pitt? Or is it Chuck Norris?


The Guardian said: ‘Brad Pitt’s Chanel No 5 ad: the smell of disaster.

‘All the actor had to do was stand in a room spouting drivel for 30 seconds. What could possibly go wrong?’

The Sun added: ‘It’s all gone Pitt Tong – is Brad having a mid-life crisis?’

‘Since the early 1990s he has been one of the world’s most bankable movie stars, filming a perfect blend of box office smashes and trendy cult hits.

But after his cringe-inducing Chanel advert was named among the year’s worst, Hollywood insiders are starting to whisper the unaskable question — Is Brad Pitt starting to whiff?’

Business Insider went: ‘Brad Pitt’s incredibly awkward and rambling Chanel No. 5 ad has been widely panned and spoofed.’

‘A month and a half later, Pitt himself mildly came to Chanel’s defense.

“I kind of like it,” he told Reuters. “I respect what they do. They do some really quality things.”’

‘Chanel should be relieved that Pitt thought the ad was kind of sort of ok. The luxury brand did pay Pitt a reported $7 million for the campaign, after all. That’s $175,000 for each one of the 40 nonsensical words Pitt spouted in the spot.’

According to Jan Moir, the ad could be one of the worst ever.

Why? ‘Not just because it has just been voted the worst advert of 2012. Not just because the centrepiece television ad is quite possibly the most pretentious 30 seconds ever captured on film (and I am including all Bono footage, plus the collected speechifying of Lady Gaga, Salman Rushdie and Madonna in this category).

Not just because it has damaged Brad’s own reputation and that of the iconic perfume itself – first invented in 1921 and famously worn by Marilyn Monroe in bed. Not just because it has put a crimp in the standing of the House of Chanel and a question mark over the judgment of boss Karl Lagerfeld, whose idea it was to hire Pitt in the first place.’

The article continues: ‘Hush now. Brad is talking. Who is he talking to? A perfume bottle or a woman? It is impossible to say. Is he talking about the perfume or to the perfume? Who knows, but his voice is hoarse and gruff with the effort of trying to distil all the wonders of the world and mysteries of the universe, life and love itself into 40 words of the kind of banal gobbledegook that passes for profundity amongst the fashion set.

‘It makes no sense at all.’

Confusion. Confusion everywhere.

More confusion coming: ‘This huge advertising campaign, which was rolled out in October on both sides of the Atlantic on TV and in magazines, newspapers and on billboards, is one of the most expensive in Chanel’s history. The media-spend in Britain and America alone was estimated at £25 million, with Brad’s fee added on top of that.

The TV ad was shot in London and directed by Joe Wright, whose credits include Pride & Prejudice (the 2005 version), Atonement and this year’s Anna Karenina. Wright said that even he didn’t understand the ad’s script, which was written by Glenn O’Brien, a fashion insider who writes a column called The Style Guy for American GQ magazine’ and ‘in a recent chat-show appearance, Brad admitted he didn’t have a clue what the Chanel ad was about either. This is a sentiment echoed by Claire Beale, editor of Campaign, the trade magazine for the UK advertising industry. She says: “There is no doubt this is a real stinker of an ad but it’s so bad it’s become one of the most noticeable campaigns out there – one of the most high-profile campaigns Chanel has ever run, though also one of the most expensive.

blast of Chanel.’

A confusing feeling left in the viewer: ‘And in the end, all those throaty voiceovers and frightening Brad-ish close-ups just make me focus on what an odd shape his face is – a wedge of hairy cheese trying to be profound – and wish he would shave off that irritating goatee.’

The commuter is confused.

“Who is Chanel talking to?” has been the refrain here.

So Chanel chose the wrong brand ambassador, the wrong script for a very confusing video promoting a legendary product in the wrong way.

What about billboards and ad placement strategy on the streets?

This is a bus stop ad in Catford, south London. The question, once again, is: Chanel, who are you talking to?


Here as well, there’s plenty of stimuli for a good laugh: ‘this ad is rubbish’, ‘guy’s talking about the journey, there comes the N37 init’, Pitt stop and so on and so forth.

Inevitable, they say in the ad. I’d say the opposite.

What do you think?

London Web Agency Appnova – keep following us on Twitter @appnova and “like” us on Facebook for useful news and tasteful digressions about geeky stuff.

Storytelling 2.0 / How to use Tumblr, Vimeo, and brand website. feat. Dunhill, Rapha and Nick Wooster.

‘Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it.’

Hannah Arendt

There is a guy called Kafka. He’s a writer, and he’s got big ears. He imagines a man waking up, one day, to find himself transformed into a big cockroach. It’s a simple story, but it’s so twisted and obscure, once you read it is going to haunt your dreams forever.

That’s the power of storytelling. You know, Mr. Tamburine Man, Lucy in the sky, Alex and his droogs, the story of a watch as Captain Koons/Christopher Walken tells it in Pulp Fiction, and so on and so forth.

Nowadays, every Social Media Guru, Ninja, Ringmaster, Druid or whatever these mythological semi-gods 2.0 define themselves, tell brands that storytelling is paramount for their businesses online.


But then you see lots of brands, desperately lost, drowning, unable to breath, trying to come up with the right anecdote, fable, narrative, failing miserably.

At the end of the day, many don’t even get social media; they are just there because everybody else is – a Tweecious circle.

Many have a website; sometimes it looks amazing, sometimes it doesn’t. Most of the times they have it because you have to have it. Like a pair of gloves, you buy them because the winter is coming and everybody have got them, then you don’t use them very often.

What about video? It has been the next big thing for five years now, but never took off like it was supposed to – with a supersonic bang.

Still, many see a video and go “WOW, I want a video, too”, then often come up with some expensive, pointless, and confusing stuff – look at CHANEL’s YouTube channel.


Now, here’s three great ways to use video, Tumblr and a website to tell a story.

Website / Dunhill – The gentleman par excellence

Dunhill…Just look at it. Images, sounds, videos, gentlemen, art, style. Perfection.

Read More…