DISQUS

Advendetta · 8 months ago

Is anyone besides Razorfish excited about this?
Who cares if a nontradtional agency is doing average traditional work?
Doesn't that hurt the case for "bluring the lines," rather than helping it?

hamburlgar · 8 months ago

wow that was terrible.

wow just wow · 8 months ago

Razorfish simply demonstrated that digital is not ready to usurp traditional advertising agencies. No amount of detergent could remove the shit stain left by that film. Razorfish, please go back to concentrating on lame banner ads and microsites.

johnnyo · 8 months ago

Digital agencies often claim that they do things traditional agencies can't. What they leave out is that they can't do things traditional agencies can. There's room for both kinds of work in this industry, but digital isn't going to "replace" traditional any time soon, unless people lose their taste for things like production values and storytelling.

Consider_Yourself_Warned · 8 months ago

Old ad guys who've been surviving off of fat cereal commercial budgets for years are angry because half of their friends have been laid off and they can no longer get a crappy spot about a kid talking to the cartoons on the cereal box through the client anymore. Stop taking yourself so seriously traditional. Your days are numbered. Embrace the new. If that doesn't work for you maybe you can get a job consulting on Mad Men. I think Nelson Muntz said it best, “Ha ha! Your medium is dying!”.

Lame Arguments · 8 months ago

This debate is absurd. Yes, the above film is terrible, but it's not because Razorfish is a digital shop. They just started with a mediocre idea. Even a "traditional" shop that starts off with a bad idea is going to shoot a bad spot. Digital shops have done great traditional work (R/GA for Ad Council, AKQA for Nike, etc etc) and vice versa because they've started with strong ideas.

Johnnyo says "What they leave out is that they can't do things traditional agencies can."

What does that even mean? Digital agencies can't hire production companies and directors because they don't know how? They don't physically know how to write TV scripts? That clearly makes no sense.

Same goes for traditional agencies. They can't do interactive because they don't have someone that can build a microsite? Terrible argument.

I guess being young, I'm just used to media neutral thinking, but the argument that one can't do the other because "they don't think that way" is mind-boggling and nonsensical.

Come up with a great idea and execute it in the best way possible. Don't blame your "traditional" or "digital" for shitty work. Blame your brain.

Advendetta · 8 months ago

Of course anyone can physically write a TV script and hire a production company. Agencies of all types do it all the time. But not everyone can actually write a TV script worth watching. THAT's the problem. Both traditional and digital agencies skimp on the necessary talent and get mediocre results.
Shouldn't we judge agencies by the quality work they produce?

Tabitha · 8 months ago

I think you hit the nail on the head

bringoutyourdead · 8 months ago

This says nothing more than Razorfish is as capable of producing work that sucks as any so-called traditional agency.

And do we really refer to agencies for whom the bulk of their billings does not come from traditional media placement as "non-traditional"?

In my mind, there are agencies who do good work and there are agencies who suck. I'm trying to recall any significant award or buzzworthy ad ever produced by Razorfish. In fact, I'm trying to recall ANYTHING ever produced by Razorfish.

Other than those two cats in loud clothing who cashed in big-time before the dotcom bubble burst...

yikes · 8 months ago

wow. could ad people be more cynical? I laughed. it wasn't nearly as bad as what most of you are probably producing. geez. just relax.