Video: Cannes Day One in seven and a half minutes

dayone_highlights2_300x200This official Cannes Lions Day One video (below) contains highlights from Sunday talks by Barbarian Group, SapientNitro, BrandOpus and Tencent.

The Cannes Lions channel also hosts a number of offstage videos, such as a discussion by Yoko Ishihara, Fran Miller and Kentaro Kimura of Hakuhodo about why Japanese creativity is inspired by the clash of Zen and anime. Or you might enjoy a brief conversation with The Walking Dead executive producer Dave Alpert and actor Steven Yeun.

Meanwhile, the Lions Live 2015 channel will be streaming a selection of sessions as they happen and making them available for after-the-fact viewing until 12 July. In fact, How to survive a Zombie attack, the MediaCom session based on The Walking Dead, is available there now.

Share

  • Ade Thomas

    A good dose of common sense from Mr Trott once again

  • steakandcheese

    For people who want to listen to the whole program:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04pbmjv

  • I strongly dislike that ad myself, but it does seem that these journalists were being particularly obtuse.
    (Also, in defence of the agency and the creatives who crafted the ad, I’m told The Legion had very set views on what they wanted to see, and refused point-blank any other creative avenue. They actively wanted the WW1 centenary to be the focus of their campaign, so that’s what got made.

  • Jim Fraser

    I vote dopey AND doing it on purpose.

  • Stevie Jay Reynolds

    People sometimes forget that advertising is a democracy. If people don’t like the ad, then it’s not a good ad. If an ad is genuinely tasteless then we can condemn it on the grounds of bad business as well as on taste.

    In advertising, our job (broadly speaking) is to make people like things. In journalism, their job (even more broadly speaking) is to make people hate things. I know how I’d rather spend my days.

  • Bernardo Jr Pacis

    But Dave, all the planners have been reading cognitive science experiment by Kahneman and reports like The Long and Short of It by Les Binet and Peter Fields.

    Who say there needs to be no rationale in TV ads. What there needs to be is emotions. And only emotions. Not a mix, not a little bit of both. Just emotions.

    Not brand is how you say it and product is what you say amymore. That’s old hat apparently.

    They say that over time emotional ads with no rational in them perform better than those with rationale in them or those with a mix in them. They have numbers and everything.

    The end conclusion is to make ads that are well produced emotional film pieces and bolt a logo / strap-line on because that is what they’ve been told to do. They do the whole people are purely emotional they have no ability to think rationally see the whole system 1 and system 2 by Kahneman dance and that people simply post rationalise their emotional decision making.

    We need more people in advertising standing up to this misanthropic view of people or what they call consumers. As they bring in neuro-science and other bunkum to post rationale their own down-graded view of people.

    • Jeremy Nye

      Jim, you’re behaving like the people on the programme by exaggerating a point.
      The Long and the Short doesn’t say only appeal to emotions unless you are only focused on the long-term. It specifically says you need a balance – long and short-term, emotional and rational, brand building and activation. Binet and Field’s data says that for a campaign of 1-2 years, a combined strategy is more effective. What tips the balance is that people talk about the emotional campaigns – like we are here. It’s not downgrading people… it’s treating them as human!

  • Bernardo Jr Pacis

    You say that there was 4 journalists on the show all form the Daily Mail and The Guardian. Well let’s see, Michael Portillo was on and he’s not a journalist for them but The Times and most known as an ex Tory MP. Claire Fox was on from The Institute of Ideas – who I thought agreed with you really. Matthew Taylor is the CEO of the RSA. Only Mel Phillips is a journalist for The Daily Mail. Advertising folk should stick to advertising?

    • dave trott

      Jim, I didn’t explain it fully because I was trying to keep it short.
      There were 4 people brought in to be interviewed separately.
      We only met in the hospitality suite beforehand.
      Everyone was very anti-advertising.
      There was a guy from the RCA, a guy from an ecological group, and the Guardian journalist that started the story.
      One-at-a-time we were taken in front of the panel.
      Only 2 of the panel were allowed to speak to any interviewee, I got the woman from the Mail and a guy I assumed was from the Guardian (next to him was David Aaronovitch who writes for the Guardian and the Times).
      Claire Fox didn’t interview me, neither did Michael Portillo.
      I thought this was too great a level of detail so I oversimplified it for the blog.

      • Bernardo Jr Pacis

        You could have simplified it further by not having it in. What would have been lost without those words? But I expect mentioning The Mail and The Guardian was to do some heavy lifting. Set the scene if you like.

        And no one loves advertising do they? Apart from those who make it. To say everyone on the show was very anti-advertising I don’t think is correct.

        Fox said she loved the ad, that she cried watching it and added that as moral autonomous beings we are able to resist being sold stuff. And people were taking it all too seriously. We all know what ads are. We’re not idiots. She even has trouble in her words with the anti-advertising brigade. She makes the point at the end why don’t they (advertisers) sell thing more directly why are they trying to associate themselves with values – it’s like they’re scared to sell things!

        Portillo says advertising is amoral and made the humanist point that people who get upset by advertising are over-reating and being patronising. And goes as far to say that advertising should have free speech – yet he hated the ad and wouldn’t shop at Sainsbury’s now.

        Mel Phillips on the other hand said advertising is a necessary evil (not the same in my book as very anti advertising) and she felt the use of WW1 was degrading. And tried to find out in the 2 mins she had if you’d ever see using emotional footage (i.e. Anne Frank and Ryman diaries) as a moral issue or just a pragmatic one. It wasn’t about being stupid or dopey it was whether it would ever be immoral to pull on heart-strings whether there is a connection or not.. She did the old bullshit reductio ad absurdum trick.

        My point was originally is that this it what advertising has become today – non connected. Because of what planners see as good advertising today – solely emotional and non connected (see Binet and Fields) – there need be no rational connection – it works best without them in the way messing the ad up. That is their view at the moment backed up by mumbo cog science, neuroscience and system 1 and system 2 etc.

      • Marty Jones

        For what it’s worth, Ally Fogg (one of the witnesses) also writes regularly for The Guardian.

  • john p woods

    Dave, would it be more relevant if Jesus was used to sell UniBonds’ ‘No More Nails’?

  • Anne

    Re both WWs, it’s taken Germany a long time to come to terms with its past and the very existence of the EU is an example of their guarantee to ensure the Continent will never again descend into bloodshed. Yet IMHO, Brits harp on both WWs to point of obsession. The number of media channels in the UK dedicated to War documentaries is also a giveaway.

    Also worth noting that more Germans than British lost their lives in both wars, yet in Britain every village we can see a lovingly tended war memorial, while Germany does not have this. Their guilt overwhelms the nation even today, they are victims too. People sometimes forget that many Germans did not support the Nazis.

    The Sainsbury ad reminds us that in time of war – whether it was in the 20th Century, or now in the 21st Century, the portrayal of soldiers, who’s “work” is to sacrfice their lives for the rest of us, are still human beings. Despite being conditioned – or rather broken down to be killing machines for their country, there is still humanity. The ad reminds us of man’s spirit over adversity.

  • George Tannenbaum

    Dave, don’t know if you saw the new ad for Air Wick room freshener. Be interested if you think “there’s a connection.” http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/droga5-debuts-home-is-in-the-air-for-air-wick_b76326

  • 9

    I think you offered a pretty poor defence. Just because we can find a ‘connection’ doesn’t mean that everything’s fair game.

  • Timm

    I listened to the programme Dave and felt that you gave it your best shot at defending advertising.

    We seem to have a real and growing problem in the UK; anyone and everyone seems to get so fucking ‘offended’ about stuff that really isn’t worth worrying about. The ASA received over 725 complaints from viewers about the ad. I’d rather folk vented their spleens about inequalities, child molesters, rapists, dishonest politicians (and phone-tapping journalist) than work themselves into a froth over the short and often beautifully-crafted films shown between programmes on commercial tv channels.

    The Sainsbury’s ad is an ad. Nothing more or less. And for the record I think it’s a great one.

  • Mark Jolly

    As someone who used to be copywriter but am now a journalist, I’ve been waiting years for this discussion to come along. It seems to me that you are all complaining that people don’t understand advertising or appreciate the talent it takes to create it, but then doing exactly the same thing to other occupations.
    Journalists often wonder what news exactly is. What makes one thing newsworthy, and another not. There’s an old explanation: ‘News is what someone doesn’t want you to know. Everything else is advertising.’ Not directly applicable on a radio discussion, but the principle still applies. In this situation,Dave wasn’t there to have a friendly chat. It was their job to ask him some difficult questions, to make him uneasy. And when anyone tells me I’ve asked a stupid question, I tell them I don’t care: it’s the answer that is important. Look at Michael Parkinson: he asked some pretty simple questions, but got good answers. So I would imagine the answer to Dave’s question at the end is yes, they were doing it deliberately. Not to wind him up, but to put him on the spot and force him to say something newsworthy.
    PS. As a former copywriter, I can just about see the Sainsbury’s ad has some merit. As a member of the public, it makes me want to puke.
    PPS When I told them on one newspaper I used to work in advertising, they all fell about the place laughing and asked if I was sacked. (I wasn’t).