Paul Casserly: Bradvertising gives me a headache

Apparently Brad Pitt was paid $7 million for his Chanel perfume advert.
Nice work if you can get it. Nice lighting effect even. But what a bat-shit
crazy manifesto of gibberish.

It reminded me of that scene in Black Books when Manny swallows the Little Book of Calm.

Except Brad has swallowed the little book of meaningless, mind-numbing ad-speak. After watching it I went in search of confirmation that I was not alone in being wound up by the spot.

Of course everything that exists is now winding up someone somewhere and I soon found kindred evil spirits. No surprise then that's it been parodied already.

"Awful" says Fox News, well they can talk. The Guardian used the words "smell of disaster" and shared a link to Nicole Kidman's equally lame effort a few years back.

The Mirror was predictably caustic. "7 Million dollars for standing in a grey room talking rubbish."

But there are more offensive things currently clogging up our adbreaks. I'm particularly aggrieved by a line in a Panadol commercial that's giving me a headache. Hang on, maybe that was the plan? They really are evil geniuses. Anyway the line that has me wound up is:

"Caring takes strength and sometimes it takes Panadol Extra."

Nice try throwing 'caring' and 'strength' into the mix along with your DRUGS.

Mind you it's not as audacious as the MTA and their campaign designed to convince us that we should keep having WOF's every six months, even though it's as plain as the packaging that the government wants to put on fags that once a year will be sweet as bro.

Still, they are sticking up for their peeps: the mechanics who stand to lose a shed load of money every year if the law is passed. If you're part of that association then you're being well served. They will have less luck with the rest of us who can spot scare-mongering when we see it.

Laying in on even thicker is British American Tobacco with their admittedly classy campaign designed to get the public behind them over proposed plain packaging legislation. The scare-mongering on display here is cleverly applied, and their attempt to draw parallels with alcohol does strike a chord.

But is it a bum note? I reckon there's some good reasons that people won't get behind the campaign. Most non-smokers just don't like tobacco companies, and see them as legalised drug dealers with little regard for the nation's health.

As for smokers, the plain packets will mean that the only way for the companies to
compete will be via price, which should mean cheaper fags.

So who knows, this time next year you should be able to afford a couple of extra packs of plainly wrapped fags with the money you save from only having to pay for one WOF. That is if you haven't died of lung cancer or your Mitsubishi hasn't ploughed into a logging truck due to brake failure.

As Brad says in the second instalment of his Chanel campaign, "It's not a journey. Every journey ends, but we go on. The world turns, and we turn with it. Plans disappear, got any Panadol?"

Agree/Disagree?

-nzherald.co.nz