2012年坎城網路青年創意競賽第一輪國際評審講評:Dave Bedwood

國際評審 Dave Bedwood(倫敦Lean Mean Fighting Machine)遲了兩天才進行評審。我偷偷看他的 Facebook,看到他太太提到嬰兒「不肯出生』。我問他是不是在忙,嬰兒的話題是怎麼回事,他說,第三個寶寶正在路上。——真是非常感謝 Dave 在百忙中抽空進行評審及講評,也預祝他們家的第三胎趕緊安抵地球。(話說,Dave寫完第一稿之後,有先傳給我看,他說,他是以對待Lean Mean Fighting Machine裡的同仁的方式來寫評語的。問我是不是太嚴苛,要不要改寫?我想,他的評論是評審非常可能在評審中講的話,因此我們應該把握這機會聽聽難得的真實意見。因此沒有讓他改寫,請大家也能以這心情對待評審的評語。——請注意,因為是前五強,甚至前三強,或是引起評審注意才能獲得評語,所以不需要不開心喔!)以下是 Dave 的評語和排名:

Overall, considering the time they had it was pretty impressive how much had been accomplished. I think MAYBE the fact that these ideas had to be made as well, might be the reason that some of the writing wasn’t as good as it could of been.

整體而言,考慮到團隊有限的時間,作品的成就令人印象深刻,我在想,執行做得這麼好,或許也是一些作品的寫作還沒有到達本來應該可以到的點的原因。

The writing process is a long one, and if you have to actually make the work it obviously means you don’t get the chance to really explore and craft the thinking, the writing.

寫作是需要足夠時間砥礪的。而如果必須要在12小時內還要把作品真的執行出來的話,很顯然,就是沒有機會真正把概念和寫作的可能性推到極點。

But that said, that is the competition, and it’s not a bad thing to get used to working quickly.

但儘管這麼說,這是比賽,要練習比賽,習慣很快做出作品還是好的。

Here in London the people who write the ads aren’t the people who design, or code the ads.

在倫敦,寫廣告的人和設計或寫程式的都不會是同樣的人。

But I am probably going to be extinct soon!

但可能我們這種人已經快絕種了吧!

For me the top three were:

我認為的前三名是:

第一名:

Team  8 作品:http://cell.webgene.com.tw/iat/20120324/team_8/index.htm

#1 (7分)

They had taken the original art direction, which is great, but moved it on, so it wasn’t just the poster being resized into a banner space.

團隊利用了原來的藝術表現,這很棒,但更棒的是他們向前推進,因此並沒有只是把原來的海報調個大小放在banner空間裡。

The ad was simple, the interaction was relevant and surprising, and also a little bit horrible to do – in fact it was more thought provoking than some of the more overt banners that had you whipping or slashing. Probably as it left more to the imagination, the other ones were too obvious and lacked any reality.

作品很簡單,互動有相關性,令人驚訝,也有點可怕——事實上,作品比某些很直白地讓使用者揮鞭或戳來戳去的作品更有刺激性。而且可能因為作品比那樣的作品留出更多想像空間,讓其他的作品相較之下太直白,欠缺真實感。

As all good ads should do, it made its point quickly, didn’t ask too much of me, but left me in no doubt of its point.

就像所有好廣告一樣,作品很快表達重點,並沒有過度要求我的投入,卻毫不曖昧地讓我知道重點。

I’m not so worried about a call to action on these, the ad itself should make you want to know more, if it hasn’t done that then no call to action will suddenly make you feel different at the end.

我不會太擔心行動召喚的問題,廣告本身應該要讓你想知道更多,如果沒做到這點,結尾有沒有行動召喚就沒什麼差別了。

I think most people know you can click on a banner for more info anyway.

我想大多數人也都知道點banner一定會連你到讓你能知道更多的地方。

It did seem that the click through was trapped on the interaction, but that’s a small technical point.

看起來作品的達成率的確是會陷在互動中,但我認為這是個比較小的技術問題。

 

第二名:

Team  5 作品:http://cell.webgene.com.tw/iat/20120324/team_5/index.htm

#2 (5分)

Very nicely produced, a more obvious idea than Team 8. But it was in a recognisable format (some other entries were in formats that I didn’t recognise, therefore seemed to of skipped what can be hard about writing in these spaces, the space itself.)

製作品質很高。比第8組作品要直白些。但好在它的形式是辨識度高的。(有些其他作品的形式我感受不到辨識度,因此可能錯過了這個空間可能可以溝通的什麼。)

I think this idea comes close, what it misses it the reveal, which is so powerful in the original poster ads. They work because of the clash of visuals, however in this banner we get the set up really nicely told, but the nasty bit is too subtle. It’s in the copy and in a small detail on the animation.

我認為這個作品的創意其實快要到位了。但是比較沒做到的是在鋪陳出故事的部份,這在原來的海報中是做得很棒的。原來的海報之所以把這點做得很棒,是影像的衝突性。

They are like nicely set up jokes but without the killer punchline.

而這件作品可惜的地方是,像一個鋪陳得很好的笑話,卻少了臨門一腳的「那句話」。

 

第三名:

Team  12作品:http://cell.webgene.com.tw/iat/20120324/team_12/index.htm

#3 (3 分)

This was a close call between this and Team 6. I think Team 6 felt like it had cheated the task a little, I don’t really know what format that is, is it in facebook? Or is it on a site, that big, looking like it’s in facebook? It plays on it being a twist to that facebook functionality, but take that away and it didn’t feel that strong as an insight or ad.

這件作品和第6組作品很難分高下。但我後來覺得,第6組讓我覺得他們有點矇混:我不太確定他們到底用什麼形式,是Facebook?是看起來像Facebook的網頁?他們玩的是「改Facebook功能」這件事,但把這點拿掉,裡面廣告應該有的洞察並沒有那麼強。

But to contradict myself, at least the team were thinking about how to play with digital media and conventions. It’s just that that isn’t enough.

但是我要自打嘴巴提出的是:至少團隊有在思考如何『玩」數位媒體和這空間上的習慣。只不過,只有這樣是不夠的。

Team 12’s idea wasn’t perfect, it felt like it asked too much of me, I only preserved because I knew I had to for judging, would an ordinary person play along for so long? It felt like the pay off line could of been better, but what I liked about it was it was using something from digital that is very ‘now’ but doing it with a good reason and twist. The ad worked.

第12組的概念並不完美。我覺得這廣告對我要求太多了。我堅持玩下去,只是因為我是評審,非玩不可。但一般人會堅持這麼久嗎?我也覺得結語可以再好一點。但是我喜歡這作品的理由是,它用了數位世界「現在非常熱」的東西,並且給了個好理由來「玩」這東西,這廣告是成立的。

Side note: Team 16: I didn’t like this ad, felt to flippant, shock tactics and a bit easy. I think it’s happier with it’s own shock than actually making a point about animal cruelty. Plus the insight at it’s core isn’t very insightful.

順帶一提,(我被要求評論第16組的作品):我不喜歡這廣告,感覺太輕浮、沒有好理由地震駭手法,並且有點偷吃步的感覺。我會覺得作品太自以為是地對自己利用震駭這件事感覺良好,而沒有認真要講動物虐待這件事。它的核心洞察也並不是非常有洞察性。

Dave Bedwood
Creative Partner

LEAN MEAN FIGHTING MACHINE

One thought on “2012年坎城網路青年創意競賽第一輪國際評審講評:Dave Bedwood

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *