If It’s Great Creative Why Does It Look So Gross?


UPDATE: In 10 days the campaign has had 450,000 views, and the KPI’s set (measured by samples requested) have been exceeded.


This, believe it or not, is one of the pieces of Naked Communications work I’m rather proud of. It is absolutely disgusting, and I still really can’t watch the whole thing, so be careul if you choose to watch it.  It is however, doing really well.

I remember once having an argument with a ‘creative’ who worked at Naked (briefly). He wanted to make this particular piece of creative we were working on look ‘beautiful’. I said it didn’t matter (to the client or the consumer). He said it mattered to him.  I argued that I would happily deliver a poo if it solved the clients problem effectively and efficiently. He said he didn’t want to work in that kind of agency and left.

To me this piece of work ‘Oxy: Man Sized Problems’, challenges creative thinking like my ex-collegue.  It challenges it in two ways; a) creative doesn’t have to be pretty, and b) creative doesn’t need to be made by creatives. Here’s a Tweet from @adamclyne that sums it up beautifully:

There are many strong strategic reasons why this piece of work is ‘right’, and it’s probably best summed up by here by Will Burns from Forbes in his article ‘When Disgusting is Good Strategy’. Tim Burrow’s also called it out positively here, in his piece ‘Spot on Strategy’.

It’s also been called ‘The Grossest Ad I’ve Ever Seen‘, whilst Channel 9 News referes to it as ‘The Most Disgusting Ad Ever’.

It’s only been up a few days but so far so good, and exceeding expectations.  There is a lot in this