Right. It just comes off as kind of melancholy and disappointed while trying to tough it out. It should just be saying look how awesome our cars are.Weird Fishes said:Worse, the font looks like an apology letter. It's the sort of font you'd want to use following a corporate disaster when you wanted to make nice with the consumer. Think BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a cruise ship grounding and sinking just off the coast of Italy, or, well, a car catching on fire and burning part of a customer's home. It sets the exact opposite tone Fisker should be trying to create right now.
So this will be the brand voice? Anyone who gets the WSJ have any photos of the full spread?The print-only buy is actually a series of four quarter-page ads followed by a full-page one, created by eMaxx Partners and Minneapolis agency Mono, both of which began working with Fisker in recent months. Tim Blett, founder of eMaxx called the ads a "prelude" and a "sneak peek of the brand voice" to a larger global marketing campaign launching late-summer that will include a mix of media, but the focus will not be on TV.
I agree that the car looks better from other angles but it looks most futuristic and technologically advanced from this angle because of the PV roof. From a reader's point of view, I think that was what they were going for.Weird Fishes said:And finally, why on earth would anyone in their right mind choose to use an overhead shot of such a gorgeous car? It's like having a top model pose for an ad and then deciding to throw out all the shots of the face/body and just use the shot of the top of their head. If it somehow played into the concept of the ad, it would make sense. But it doesn't. And so it ends up being a wasted opportunity to seduce with the beauty of the car.
Sorry about removing my post, doug. I sat there and thought about it and decided perhaps I've been out of the advertising business so long that I've lost touch with what is and isn't a good ad. So I texted a buddy of mine who is still in advertising (and quite successful I might add) and asked her what she thought of the ad. Her response "You're right. The ads are terrible. Everything you said is spot on. And what's really surprising is that Mono is one of the hottest agencies going right now."doug said:I agree. To me it says, "Sorry about the bugs, cars are hard."
![]()
Edit to add: Hmmm... seems the post I was responding to disappeared.
In the age of User Generated Content, you should create the ad you think they should have run. I bet you can do way better, and I'd love to see it (and would forward it to everyone I know).Weird Fishes said:As a former (award winning) advertising copywriter, my opinion is that it is an ad in search of a concept. In other words, it is weak.
Oh, the concept is there alright. You'll find it in the last line: "Building the future never is (easy)."
Okay, whatever. It isn't a ground breaking thought. It isn't clever or funny or even educational. It doesn't create mystique for the Fisker brand or lend personality to a pretty remarkable car. Nope, it just sort of lays there.
And instead of using that thought as a headline, they buried it at the end of a daunting block of copy that is delivered in a font/handwriting that I think most will find difficult to read. I think they knew they didn't have any big idea there and tried to cover it up by putting it at the very end of the copy.
The art direction could have saved the ad. With a really great shot of the Karma, a font both legible and appropriate, and a well chosen layout, it might have worked.
But the art direction is *terrible*.
The copy isn't particularly long. But it is laid out in such a way that it seems much longer than it really is.
Worse, the font looks like an apology letter. It's the sort of font you'd want to use following a corporate disaster when you wanted to make nice with the consumer. Think BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a cruise ship grounding and sinking just off the coast of Italy, or, well, a car catching on fire and burning part of a customer's home. It sets the exact opposite tone Fisker should be trying to create right now.
And finally, why on earth would anyone in their right mind choose to use an overhead shot of such a gorgeous car? It's like having a top model pose for an ad and then deciding to throw out all the shots of the face/body and just use the shot of the top of their head. If it somehow played into the concept of the ad, it would make sense. But it doesn't. And so it ends up being a wasted opportunity to seduce with the beauty of the car.
The ad is a great big, giant FAIL!!
Did they really pay 6 figures for that ad?!?rex said:the six figure WSJ ad money
It's a lot easier to get news coverage in the WSJ when you are a public company with a $3B market cap.doug said:Did they really pay 6 figures for that ad?!?
This is what Tesla got in the WSJ for "free". Front page of the Off Duty section.
And let's not forget that Fisker got plenty of news coverage as well, but they unfortunately squandered the opportunity by failing to actually deliver a working car until well after the press coverage ended.dennis said:It's a lot easier to get news coverage in the WSJ when you are a public company with a $3B market cap.doug said:Did they really pay 6 figures for that ad?!?
This is what Tesla got in the WSJ for "free". Front page of the Off Duty section.