Pete Best, meet Jawed Karim

Posted on October 16th, 2006

Oh relax, I'm sure he did okay. At the very least, it will make a nice addition to his resume (note to Jawed: you created freakin' YouTube; I think you can stop listing your summer internships now).

One last thought and let's move on: am I the only one who thinks the portmanteau "GooTube" sounds like slang for the Spice Channel?

With few exceptions, sequels almost invariably suck. Just the same, I've got my fingers crossed for Fallon London's follow-up to last year's most elegant ad. After months of hype (how many ads gets their own ads?), it's finally debuting at 8:35 p.m. GMT tomorrow night. I don't know if they've ever heard the "underpromise/overdeliver" mantra, but the only way they'll exceed my expectations is if Jesus crawls out of my monitor like that freaky girl from The Ring.


Which naturally made me think of this.

Last but not least, thanks very much to everyone who sent in their debate ideas. Our first reader-inspired topic comes courtesy of Kevin W., who asks "how would you commit the perfect murder?" We chose his because it's always a good idea to placate homicidal maniacs.



October 17, 8:36 p.m. – Still No Sign Of Jesus

The new Bravia ad is up and I find myself wishing I had Alzheimer's. Because if I could forget Balls long enough to watch Paint with an open mind, free of expectation, I think my jaw might hit the floor. It's a shame, then, that I can't help but find it a little wanting.

Don't get me wrong – I'd kill to have this on my reel; it's original and technically impressive. But between the uninspired choice of music and the fact that YouTube spoiled the surprise months ago, I just didn't feel the magic.

Also, the clown made me think of the war movie cliché of a soldier running in slow-mo through a battlefield while death rains down around him... recreated for a Saturday morning audience.

Bookmark and Share Email 


powered by Disqus


w vs p

© 2009 Jamie Lirette & Graham Mutch

Get our RSS feed! What the hell is RSS?

What would an advertising site be without the fine print? Here goes: Any reference to actual brands on this site is for satirical purposes only and is in no way endorsed by their parent companies
or the agencies that represent them. Neither is any harm intended towards the aforementioned brands, companies and agencies. Quite the contrary — we may well come begging for a job one day.
And really, wouldn't you rather sue Adbusters?