Published on .

Most Popular
In or Out of Season?
Pennsylvania as an autumn tourist destination. Is this ad shaking your tree or would you rather leaf it alone? Rate it on the Rate the Ad-o-mometer's six-degree scale of excellence, with 5 being the top score: 5 World-changing, 4 Outstanding, 3 Good, 2 Forgettable, 1 Actively annoying, 0 The worst. And feel free to offer your comments on the photography, art direction, the copy, the typography, the concept, the logo, whatever. Click here to play.

It Didn't Loozle
Last week's Rate the Ad. Unilever is having a good hair day. Maybe it has an unfair advantage, being simply a web-driver with no particular product to flog, but this all-type shampoozilation, if we may coin another word, pulls a very impressive 65/35 Good/Bad Ratio — comparing the top half of the scale to the bottom half on the Rate the Ad-o-mometer. There were various objections to the hairy typography, the coy lack of a product in the ad and on the website, and the fabricated word itself, but there was a general rejoicing in the refreshing use of white space and there were plenty of intrigued clickers — what they got online is another story, however, since the site seems to function as a sort of e-mail phishery. Anyway, here are the results.

5 World-changing 4%
4 Outstanding 27%
3 Good 34%
2 Forgettable 9%
1 Actively annoying 18%
0 The worst 8%

And here are some of our fave responses.

3 Different. It zigs rather than zags.

4 Terrific use of intrigue and white space. Cool, eye-catching, hairy graphic treatment, too.

3 A copy-driven ad — how refreshing! I like the term "shampoozled" and the hair in the type. I had to check out the site right away.

3 Makes me interested, but doesn't Unilever make shampoo? Are they saying they're dodgy buggers, too?

4 Gorgeous use of space and type. Though we've all seen black type on a white background, this approach is completely fresh.

5 Finally, a company using more than a pretty hair model and telling us something useful. Good teaser. I checked out the website.

1 The hairs on the letters make me feel extremely uncomfortable, but I can't explain why.

1 After reading the ad and visiting the website, I still have idea what this ad is for. It could be a new Spike Lee film, for all I know.

1 Uh, I'm on the train reading your ad. Where do I click? Tell me more in print.

2 I'm not taking any grooming advice from a source that so desperately needs a wax.

0 Doesn't remotely resemble hair. Looks more like scummy feathers. Not working for me.

4 The layout is clean and eye-catching, the text is compelling. However, the hairy letters make my gag reflex kick in. A lot of people fear hair in weird places.

2 I like the white space but I don't like the hairy type. Clean, plain text would be better. The biggest problem is, what's the name of the product? I went to the website and I still don't know.

0 As disgusting as nose hair.

3 The interestingly manipulated headline pulls you in so you actually read the copy. Typography is well executed and the layout is nice. Overall, not bad. Although the "shampoozled" info is common knowledge now, isn't it? Hardly a conspiracy theory.

4 I love this ad! It's simple and direct. Thank God someone has the good sense to still believe white space remains powerful!

1 Adding what looks like tufts of body hair to the letters turns a bad concept into something utterly gross.

0 The LATHER has been pulled over your eyes?! Bad copy, and it makes my eyes hurt just thinking about it.

1 The ad isn't bad. The website, however, while mildly entertaining, expects me to give up my e-mail address just to find out what the hell will help me not be "shampoozled."

4 It gets noticed. It tells me something new. It's believable. I visited the website, where I got more information. I still don't know the brand, but I let them send me an e-mail to tell me. I'm intrigued.

1 I went to the website and I still can't figure out what product they're selling. And I'll be damned if I'm going to give them my e-mail address just to satisfy my curiosity.

1 The internet should be used exclusively for porn and stolen music. It's not a tool for learning how much my shampoo sucks.

4 I skipped over the small print and went directly to the website. Obviously, it worked on me.