Advertisement
Agency Network: 
Published/Aired: 
December 2010

Description

Village Frame Crafters does custom framing for everything from fine art to family portraits. So we thought, why not combine the two?

Print advertisement created by McKee Wallwork, United States for Village Frame Crafters, within the category: Professional Services.

Caption

With the right frame, it's not Uncle Bob, it's art.

Advertising Agency: McKee Wallwork Cleveland, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Creative Director: Bart Cleveland
Art Director: Bruce Johno
Copywriter: Bart Cleveland
Photographer: Steve Bonini
Log in or register to post comments
HappyHour's picture

I think this one hits the closest to the mark.

HappyHour
Activity Score 2381
JeffP's picture

This one I like.

JeffP
Activity Score 810
Marketing Manager at TomTom
atb2005's picture
atb2005
Activity Score 13557
That One Guy's picture

yeah. art direction is the same. but the pictures and copy are a better in these.

That One Guy
Activity Score 266
University of Houston
Billoughsby's picture

That's the set I thought of, atb. Exactly. And without the earlier campaign, I don't think this one would have happened at all. I think there's something beyond a spiritual kinship between the two sets. Flipping through Lürzer's is, er, inspiring.

Billoughsby
Activity Score 5144
Art Director |

That's it.

Gearbox's picture

Lame. The Frame on Wheels series was better. It made sense. This makes no sense.

Gearbox
Activity Score 116
CuriousPencil's picture

There's an 'important dialogue' to be had about the comparison between this and the FOW campaign, so let's have it.

Personally I don't see this as one for joelapompe. Sure, both sell picture frames, around subjects that some people could ridicule, and some find laughable. The difference I see in VFC is that their subjects are *wilfully* ridiculous, and made better by framing. They're *part* and willing subjects of the end product.

With FOW, the slant is on ridicule, not ridiculous. Hence the tag "we don't judge, we frame". Which could be boiled down to 'we framelessly shame anything' - not a positive message when you're using subjects you're laughing at.

Village Frame, on the other hand, paint their subjects proudly. There is no laughing, except maybe amongst close relatives, and that is a knowing laughter, not a pointy-finger in-joke, and the end result is a positive pointer to the client, a fine feelng.

The question then is: "Did VMC take a half-followed idea to its comical end, and in the process strike marketing ore, or did they golden this one alone, and does it matter?"

CuriousPencil
Activity Score 4225
Copywriter
Billoughsby's picture

But aren't the subjects of framing in both sets of ads unconsciously ridiculous individuals? That's the nonaesthetic issue that nettled me about FOW, and I think it's the very same with VFC. If the subjects of VFC's set are proud, they're no less ridiculous for it; and I don't believe the subjects of the FOW would consider themselves ridiculous if you asked them.

So is there a difference in the respect factor between the two sets? (--And this question is far removed from the gotcha universe of joelapompe, which does not interest me except as trivia, by the way.) Aren't both ads built on ridicule?

It's a personal, subjective thing, but I dislike ads that judge and ridicule. At what I will call the humanist level, they invariably fail. This, in my opinion, is because they do not show their subjects 1) laugh at themselves, and then 2) invite us to join them by laughing at ourselves, but instead keep it to straight up laughing at the other guy. ("Gee, I'm glad I'm as cool as I no doubt am, and not like that weird loser.")

(How could this one http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/village_frame_crafters_surprise not be ridicule, given the place society's dialogue on body image is right now?)

So I wasn't interested in seeing a mean idea followed to its logical conclusion. I didn't really want to see that gauntlet taken up. On the first basis alone, for me, the VFC ads are a failure, as were the as the FOW. On the second basis, i.e. did they take up an old idea and turn dross into gold, I think the result still a break-even proposition.

Regards.

Billoughsby
Activity Score 5144
Art Director |

That's it.

CuriousPencil's picture

I think if you asked the subjects of VFC (in their role as 'real people' in the context of the ad, rather than the models posing the shots) they would say they're expressing themselves, and wouldn't pose for a photo if they thought they were ridiculous. Knowing people who point at themselves with garish make up or clothes, they have a range of reasons to dress as they do. None of those reasons involve self-ridicule, and any negative reaction they get from people tends to be dismissed as those people 'not getting it'.

That aside, I do see how it can be seen as a mean set of ads, since it highlights a stereotype of people who are often mocked. It doesn't quite show them in a positive light, even if they are 'in on the joke'; but they differ from the FOW ads in that they're not out-and-out mockery: they're photos of 'real' people, whether they differ from the norm or not, whether some find them ridiculous or not, but yes they're being laughed at. Just argued myself into a corner. OKay yes, they're on the same sliding scale of mean, these just don't go as far, though that doesn't fully excuse them for the gentle mocking tone. I'm stumped.

CuriousPencil
Activity Score 4225
Copywriter
CastroAlonso's picture

nah.

CastroAlonso
Activity Score 2
Fidelitas
vote4pedro's picture

More scam ads from this scam agency. They did this work for free to try to win awards.

Even worse, they ripped off this campaign, which was in Archive a year before.

vote4pedro
Activity Score 4601
Copywriter
Featured Content

Latest Collections

Advertisement