I penned this creative philosophy last week. It was summarily rejected without discussion by someone who shall remain, hopefully, ignorant of this blog. Feel free to tell me why this sucks (aside from still being too long):
Here we are now, infotain us.
People want to be entertained. Advertisers want to inform. Great advertising – the stuff that actually works – does both. It has to. Because an ad with no entertainment will be ignored. And an ad without a message does nothing for the brand. So if you want to move the needle, move the heart. Or make ’em laugh. Maybe even shed a tear. Just make sure they remember who did it. When that happens, everybody wins.
Later,
Fox
Here we are now, infotain us.
People want to be entertained. Advertisers want to inform. Great advertising – the stuff that actually works – does both. It has to. Because an ad with no entertainment will be ignored. And an ad without a message does nothing for the brand. So if you want to move the needle, move the heart. Or make ’em laugh. Maybe even shed a tear. Just make sure they remember who did it. When that happens, everybody wins.
Later,
Fox
Foxy: the part of the brain that controls decisions also controls emotion. It’s impossible for one to make a buying decision without some emotional engagement with the message. Seems your philosophy is on the mark. But, um, you know what they say about blogging about work. Cheers.