Campaign suggests that, despite TNS figures showing Galaxy significantly outstripping sales of Dairy Milk we should applaud the Gorilla ad because, if nothing else, it has performed a service to the advertising industry. I'm sure Cadbury's are delighted. Even Private Eye pointed out that while Dairy Milk was breathing new life into Phil Collins, Galaxy was targeting core female chocolate afficionados with a tie-in to the release of Sex and The City.
Far be it from me to suggest that an old fogey like Bill Bernbach has anything to teach the young guns at Fallon, but he did say "Technique for its own sake can be disastrous. Because, after a while, you're so anxious to do things differently and to do them better and funnier and more brilliantly than the next guy, that that becomes the goal of the ad, instead of selling the merchandise".
Although imaginative and lovingly crafted you do have to ask, did the Gorilla sell the product by appealing to people likely to buy it? Was there too much Gorilla and too little brand? In its viral format, did it lead them effortlessly to a campaign site packed full of choccy stuff? Did it capture any data? Or does this Gorilla have no clothes? What do you think?
