Subway talks trash about fast food

If real, this is pretty weird. According to a post on Ads Of The World, it's a Subway campaign for DDB Puerto Rico.

Weirdness aside, there are two things about this campaign that bug me:

First, what fast food brand in its right mind would want their logo associated with disgusting, smelly, garbage trucks and bins? Even with the "feed them better" tagline, it's bound to cause some visceral negativity around the brand.

Second, Subway is hardly health food. According to their site, even a 6" version of their tuna, Italian, and pizza subs have almost 500 calories. (Specialty six-inchers like Big Philly Cheesesteak, Buffalo Chicken, and Chicken & Bacon Ranch Melt have 500 or more.)

At McDonald's, a Big Mac is more calorie-iffic, sure, at 550, but the Quarter Pounder w/Cheese is 520, and a regular hamburger (does anyone eat those?) is just 250 cal.

Sure, you can go all Jared and get a low-fat turkey sub with no cheese and mayo. But McDonald's also sells salads. The point is that you can get an Angus Bacon & Cheese (790) with fries and a Coke (note that all numbers on the McSite are "small only") or you can get a footlong Big Philly Cheesesteak (1000) with chips and a Coke. Both meals are arterially terrifying crap.

So where does Subway get off being all less-junkier-than-thou?

McDonald's wants you to buy your kids' love with McNuggets

It's always been known that McDonald's real brand promise is "buy your children's love". They create this opportunity by marketing so effectively to kids that they think anything tastes better in a McWrapper. Then they sappily remind third- and fourth-generation McParents how great they felt when they went to the Golden Arches.

Knowing all of this, and as cynical as I am, I was still shocked when I saw this print campaign on Copyranter's Buzzfeed blog.

DDB New York has produced what may be the most blatant execution of McDonald's brand strategy by telling parents that even if they suck at making their kids happy, the anodyne is a quick trip to the Mc, where a few bucks worth of sugar, salt, fat and designer flavours will make it all okay.

Yeah, it's supposed to be clever and funny. No, I am not laughing. Especially in regards to the one where a little boy is abandoned in a dark soccer field because mom or dad simply forgot to pick him up:

Show some responsibility already, McDonalds and DDB. Or at least be a little more subtle in your evil manipulation of parental love. OK?

The mindless tyranny of the "Rule of Three"

School House Rock - Three is a Magic Number - The most popular videos are here

We are all obsessed with threes. Blame School House Rock. (That, and centuries of myth and numerology.)

Ever since I began my career in advertising, the number 3 has been a pain in my creative ass — particularly when it comes to print campaigns. We sit down to brainstorm a campaign, and unless it's a one-off, we always feel compelled to try and make three equally awesome versions of the same "big idea".

The first one is usually great. The second can be also. But the third — that extra push to make it a nice, round numbered campaign — is too often a compromise.

I believe this obsession with three execution print campaigns is universal. I see it all the time in places like Ads of The World, where agencies try to clone one or two good ideas into a "full campaign".

Here is a perfect example:

Some very creative people at  DDB, Sydney, Australia, came up with a clever (if gory) visual idea to communicate the dangers of crossing the road with earbuds on. It's a little shocking for my taste, but it is original (as far as I know) and the execution is solid.

But is it "campaignable?" is always the Creative Director's question. They most likely then looked into other deathly representations of various types of headphones and other peripherals for music players and smartphones.

But what did they come back with?

The same... bloody... ad. But with a man.

What a waste of photography and art direction to duplicate the first idea. (I don't actually know in which order these were conceived, but stay with me here.)

I understand that sometimes clients feel that viewers cannot identify with a person in an ad who is not like them — sexually, ethnically, age-wise or whatever — but I would have argued that the concept was strong enough to overcome that. And the duplication just dilutes the "wow" factor of the original.

But they kept going:

There. Now we've increased the age and ethnic diversity of the campaign. But at this point, I don't even process the concept anymore. I just think that the creative team stubbornly stuck to the one good idea they could come up with.

Damn Rule of Three. It totally ruined an otherwise impressive campaign.