Post by: Mrious_be on January 17, 2008, 06:32:02 AM
I really liked this new add in the New York Time and the Wall Street Journal.
Post by: dolphin on January 17, 2008, 10:08:01 AM
Post by: Gregg on January 17, 2008, 12:06:47 PM
Post by: krissel on January 18, 2008, 08:17:44 PM
http://www.rexblog.com/2008/01/17/17448/
Post by: Mrious_be on January 21, 2008, 06:15:48 AM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Jan 17 2008, 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...but I'm not sure I like the concept of a talking ad in a news"paper"
It's not really that talking part but more how they blended the two add's together to make one.
Although it might look simple, I think if you want to create something like those, you might run in to more problems then you would expect.
Post by: MamaMoose on January 21, 2008, 09:49:02 PM
MamaMoose
Post by: krissel on January 22, 2008, 01:53:32 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on January 22, 2008, 04:10:51 PM
QUOTE
It's not really that talking part but more how they blended the two add's together to make one.
Although it might look simple, I think if you want to create something like those, you might run in to more problems then you would expect.
I don't understand where the 'problem' would be. If it's a newspaper ad, there should be absolutely no problem aligning things, that what paper proofing is all about. If you mean on a web page, then there could be problems if the designer doesn't know how to position items/graphics on a page. But even with the best design, it can usually be 'trashed' by making the window extremely small/narrow. But that is done by the user. As the saying goes, somewhere there is a fool that can defeat any fool proofing! Although it might look simple, I think if you want to create something like those, you might run in to more problems then you would expect.
Am I now to understand that the ad was not actually in the printed version of the paper(s)?
Post by: mandymac on January 22, 2008, 04:26:13 PM
You can see it on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPObm2GwQTQ
Post by: RNKIII on January 22, 2008, 04:29:01 PM
The 'ad' was a 'spoof' of a NYT front page...w/ Mac & PC below..... Then PC 'came to life' and put a ladder up to the headlines and place a 'sticky' to change the headline...
Bob K. rnkiii
Post by: Xairbusdriver on January 22, 2008, 04:49:08 PM
When I read "Ad in the NYT and WSJ" I assumed we were talking about the paper versions. 
The alignment in what I saw could be done by simply floating both the 'banner' and the (probably) Flash video to the right of the div containing them.
The space between the 'banner' and the 'PC/Mac guys' is probably just part of the video. This would probably have been plainly visible with Flash content turned off, the right-hand part of the 'banner/headline' would probably end up hidden by the Flash container. Of course, getting all browsers to work properly with this could be a problem since MS keeps changing how they interpret CSS... 
It's basically a clever illusion.
Post by: Mrious_be on January 23, 2008, 06:44:06 AM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Jan 22 2008, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's basically a clever illusion.
Isn't everything
The illusion that is... clever on the other hand
Post by: Xairbusdriver on January 23, 2008, 09:19:07 AM
QUOTE("Mrious_be")
Isn't everything [an illusion]
Too true in many areas of life. And particularly in advertising, IMHO. At least some of those are entertaining!