Brand Republic
 
Edition:
UK |
Asia
 
Digital jobs

Jobs

 

Directory

 

Tasteless Saatchi ads  

Comments:8   Add your comment
Have you seen the Dr Martin ads featuring Kurt Cobain among other dead rockers? It can't just be me, but these forlorn looking images are utterly tasteless.

The ads feature the late Nirvana front man and Sex Pistols bassist Sid Vicious wearing the iconic footwear in heaven whilst sitting on a cloud. They are all over the internet.

It’s kind of depressing how bad they are. It almost feels as if the agency knew the ads were terrible, insulting pieces of junk, but did them anyway as it knew it would whip up a storm. This, however, rewards the agency with too much foresight.

Kate Stanners, executive creative director at Saatchi & Saatchi says that it is the agency's "belief that they are respectful of both the musicians and the Dr Martens brand".

On which planet Kate? They are so tacky that they make good tack look bad. Ask yourself this, could you imagine Cobain ever agreeing to something like this?

If I were the Dr Martens client I might have been tempted to sack the agency as well, particularly as David Suddens, chief executive of Airwear, says that "Dr Martens did not commission the work".

This probably means they were created by Saatchis so it could enter them into some awards, which is why the ad was tucked away in a music magazine called Fact that few have heard of and most will never see.

Stanners admits as much when she says that "we are investigating the circumstances and considering the ongoing employment of the individual who was in breach of instructions not to distribute the ads further than the original approved placement in Fact Magazine in the UK".

Approved for one placement? That'll be agencies craving awards.

Oh well, I suppose its hard to find, oh well, whatever, nevermind.

Comments

May 27, 2007 11:31 AM
 
I'm surprised this will be the first comment on here, as I suspect there are lots people in agencies and of a sufficient age to wonder what all this fuss is about. I did a little google on these ads and surprise, surprise, when they were released there was a quote from the client as part of the press release. Doesn't really sound as if the client didn't know about them, does it? (An American site is even calling them blasphemy). Now, it seems, everyone is trying wash their hands of them and blame everone but themselves. Personally, if I was Kate Stanners, I'd give whoever did them a big, fat raise. And the client should be well-chuffed with all the publicity, because they're pretty good ads. Oh no, you say, they're tasteless etc. Well, how about this: the people appearing in the ads made their names as part of a movement that challenged society. They were all rebels in some or other way. And Doc Martens were a symbol of punk. The idea of Strummer etc. sitting on a cloud wearing a pair of Doc's puts a smile on my face - it's how I want to remember him. I'd be surprised, and a little disappointed, if any of the 4 would've objected to the ads. They're being used as icons of a generation, and so are the boots. And to address some of the other issues that are being tagged along with this: if the client wants to play around with some new strategy in an attempt to rejuvenate the brand, you've made an unholy mess of ignoring those who have supported you for years - you're acting like the makers of sensible shoes! And if you're not buying my reasoning and still think the ads irresponsible, bear this in mind: one of those featured is a murderer, and another killed himself - tortured souls who gave us so much joy, how nice to see them elevated and enjoying some redemption because of the beauty they created. PS Gordon, using "nevermind" as the last word of your article, that was just crap.
 
 
May 29, 2007 9:13 AM
 
Andrew, taking your point that DMs market themselves as an edgier brand - maybe this is the start of a resurgence given their product placement in This Is England - Kurt Cobain would be turning in his grave (yes, I know he was cremated, the metaphor still works) at the idea of his image being used to flog boots. Cobain turned his back on many of the band's fans post Nevermind because of all the sports jocks turning up at his gigs. What Sid Vicious had to say about the average man on the street who followed the crowd is unrepeatable here. It's completely against punk ethics to be involved with consumer branding, bascially. Speaking of basic, it would seem the ad's creators didn't seek the permission on Cobain's estate for the images to be used. A mental lapse? Or perhaps they knew there was no way they'd get the desired answer? I'm going for the latter...
 
 
May 29, 2007 1:47 PM
 
joey ramone was jewish! how misguided were these Ads
 
 
May 29, 2007 4:50 PM
 
I know this may seem a bit obvious, but what ever the intention of these ads was they have worked cos everyone is talking about them and I'm sure Courtney Love will have even more to say as well, which in-turn will gather even more publicity for both Saatchi & Saatchi and Dr Martens.... Personally i don't see what the who problem is...
 
 
May 29, 2007 4:51 PM
 
Personally i don't see what the whole problem is...
 
 
May 30, 2007 9:20 AM
 
Image rights, integrity and respect for the artist and their estate... The client didn't even give permission for the ads to be commissioned.
 
 
May 30, 2007 11:28 AM
 
The client didn't even give permission for the ads to be commissioned...... That depends on where you look on the internet.....
 
 
June 4, 2007 1:14 PM
 
I could care less about the ad (though asking the relatives might have been polite), but am fascinated by the process surrounding the apparent 'furore'. Was that the term in the original release used to kick-start it? When I first read about this it seemed to be some kind of student competition that got taken too far, and without the knowledge of senior agency or client. So far, so tee-hee...whoopsie: 'They didn't die with our boots on?" Now it seems it is/was a commissioned piece, using a high-profile photographer, for a one-off 'authorised' insertion in some medium I've never heard of, like that would render it in better taste than being seen anywhere else. As most awards hounds will tell you, it's quite easy to get a dodgy bit of 'edginess' mainstream with a complicit agency/client/minor-medium cabal, a little bit of MySpace or YouTube to 'find' it has been spread around, with a nudge from the PR division to kickstart the Daily Mail, and...ta-daa: a bit more than was 'intended'. So... what next? It was all actually a big hoot to get a bunch more PR value than the original, rather average concept warranted. Surely not? Bless. Crap ads don't hurt people. Being complicit in helping sell them for a few cheap ratings points does.
 
To comment on this post you have to be logged in

About this blog

Gordon's Republic

Brand Republic's daily blog on digital, media and plenty in between.
 

About the author

Gordon Macmillan

Blogging for:

Gordon's Republic

Member since: 03 Jun 2008

Last login: 26 Nov 2009

Total Posts: 1,627

 
 
 
 

Tags

 

Syndication