LETTERS TO THE EDITOR;OTHER PRINT STANDOUTS AT KELLY AWARDS; MCD'S ADS A BLUNDER;INTROSPECTION;CORRECTION

Published on .

Advertising Age's editorial "Print power" in the May 27 issue noted an essential truth of the Kelly Awards, i.e., "that great print work is about more than grabbing a frame from a TV ad." And you were correct to praise Cliff Freeman & Partners for making a conscious effort to raise its print work to the level of its sharp, provocative TV spots.

I would like to point out that Cliff Freeman won Best New Work by a New Team at this year's Kelly Awards.

I would also like to point out that there was, in fact, a second New York agency among this year's 25 finalists, Grace & Rothschild for Range Rover. Grace & Rothschild has been doing excellent print creative for many years. They have had a campaign in the Kelly finals for six years.

James E. Guthrie

Exec VP-marketing development

Magazine Publishers of America

New York

For years I've enjoyed the controversy that Bob Garfield's column has generated. Whether I've agreed or disagreed with his take on the commercials under review, I've always respected his opinion.

But now, with his unbelievably generous three-star rating for the new McDonald's Arch Deluxe campaign (AA, May 20), I have to reevaluate my respect for Mr. Garfield and question his credentials for writing such a column.

Never before have I seen such an embarrassingly inept campaign by a major marketer-and by Fallon McElligott, yet! Apparently no one connected with this strategic blunder-not the client, not the agency, not the producer, not Mr. Garfield-has any clue about what advertising should accomplish and how it should go about accomplishing it.

According to Advertising 101-a course that Mr. Garfield apparently slept through-an advertiser in today's cluttered TV environment is lucky if his spot manages to convey a single cohesive message to the distracted viewer.

Does McDonald's really think the best way to position its new hamburger is to have a bunch of kids say how bad it tastes? Is this the message McDonald's wants the viewer to come away with and remember?

Apparently so-and with Mr. Garfield's three-star blessing. Methinks he's been sniffing that secret sauce a bit too enthusiastically.

I doubt very much if the adult market is going to rush out to try an Arch Deluxe just to prove that the burger really isn't as bad as the commercials say it is. Negative advertising only works when you're attacking the other guy, not yourself.

Harris Brandt

Assistant VP-creative director

Publishers Clearing House

Port Washington, N.Y.

Rance Crain is too polite in his May 13 column ("Admen's woes more than political") when he wonders whether advertisers and their agencies may be inviting consumer distrust.

I wonder what consumers think when they discover that the key advantage that distinguishes our brand from theirs is unimportant or undetectable. I wonder what we teach our children when we ask them to put aside reality in order to learn about or experience our product. I wonder how consumers will feel about themselves and their lives after 30 or 40 or more years of being bombarded with overly manicured images.

We all have a responsibility to examine our work as well as our souls.

Sharon M. Johnson

Managing director

Three Sixty Communications

Chicago

In "Warwick OKs used car pay-for-sales plan" (AA, May 27), Driver's Mart account finalist Carmichael Lynch, Minneapolis, did not agree to a compensation plan based largely on vehicle sales, as did the other two finalists.

TO POST OR E-MAIL LETTERS

Advertising Age welcomes letters to the editor, but we ask that they be held to no more than 250 words in length. The editors reserve the right to edit letters for style and/or clarity. Address letters to Advertising Age, Viewpoint Editor, 740 Rush St., Chicago 60611. Fax: (312) 649-5331. Letters can also be e-mailed to edit@adage.com.

In this article:
Most Popular