Banner Blog: Where banners click
We're looking for a sponsor or advertisers
AboutIndustry NewsSubmitArchives and RSSSubscribeContactFollow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
21 comments
December 4, 2007
Previous Banner Next Banner
Previous Banner Next Banner
Adapting an existing piece of interactive goodness for your own brand seems to work lately.

IBM Business Man worked really well, as did the Tinman Oz / Zoom Quilt piece. However this one didn't really take the original (Goggles) to the next step. Why did they choose the toy plane? Is this the image Emirates wants to convey about their planes?

Most recently Dr Pepper got in first with Tay Zonday with Cheery Chocolate Rain.

This is on the shortlist for Eurobest 2007. Which also accepts entries form Japan?!

What's up with the typo in the google search box. I agree that it would look better with a non-cartoon plane. It is ashame because I like the concept.

Posted by: on December 4, 2007 12:19 PM

I'm a massive fan of the whole Google Maps/Earth thing. I could play with Google Earth for hours and marvel at the detail 3D elevation and countless add ons you can explore. So naturally this idea really hits the spot with me. But this really nice idea has been F**ked up by the poor execution and attention to detail. Or am i just missing something?

Posted by:DrJones on December 4, 2007 1:24 PM

It's inexcusable to have a typo in an ad like this in my opinion.

Could have been nice. Simply isn't.

Posted by: on December 4, 2007 9:49 PM

This is terrible. If you fly too long the maps end and you fly in blackness. Night-time simulator? There is no idea here, no real message (fly to 80 countries, but only fly over one small part of the world map on our advert) and a cartoon plane.

And don't even get me started on typos, it seems to me that good copy doesn't get a look-in when it comes to digital as there have been plenty of examples on this site of poor copy, typos, etc and yet they've been awarded. Almost makes me want to return to an offline world.

I said almost. :-)

Posted by:purplesimon on December 4, 2007 11:54 PM

Its quite ugly, over all, isnt it?
And what does the drop down at the top do?
and why do the arrows overlaps the copy like that?

Posted by:ellie on December 5, 2007 2:12 AM

How come I can't make the plane turn? It would be great if you could zoom out and choose different cities to travel towards. Perhaps, the very cities Emirates flies to...

Posted by:Jessie on December 5, 2007 2:17 AM

I love it.

Posted by:Marcel on December 5, 2007 7:43 AM

I wouldn't judge it so harshly. Everyone who interacted got the message.

It's fun and I was captivated by an mpu for two minutes. There aren't many ads that can do that.

Yeah sure improvements could be made, checking for spelling errors and the option to go to different locations and maybe an a380 would be cool.

nice ad though overall

Posted by:Alex on December 5, 2007 8:24 PM

@ Alex:

Of course we all got the message, it's clearly placed at the bottom of the advert. I didn't need to interact to get the message.

There are so many things wrong with the advert that it really shouldn't have been signed off at the agency. I bet the client isn't pleased at the typos, the fact that the map area isn't complete or that the drop-down menu plays no role in the banner.

Unless of course, this is a scam ad created solely for this site or others like it?

In fact, your own comments show what's wrong with this advert, how it *should* be improved and why people are judging it so harshly.

Posted by:purplesimon on December 5, 2007 10:08 PM

- Jessie, you can interact with the banner, though it isn't very clear. There are some arrows under the CTA at the bottom of the banner. Turning left and right works ok, however up and down is a different story...
- I believe the main reason they've used a cartoon aeroplane instead of an Emirates plane is because it doesn't look very good if someone crashes the Emirates plane into the ground, even if it is only in a banner...

I think this is a good idea, poorly executed.

Posted by:Rocket on December 6, 2007 2:32 PM

I hope they paid this guy: http://www.isoma.net/games/goggles.html

(It seems to be down atm, but it's the same thing exactly)

Posted by:anon on December 7, 2007 2:05 PM

I do like the concept but I hope this didn't go live as is. The spelling error in the top right is pretty glaring.

Technical Issues:
You can pin the arrow keys so that the up and down arrows don't also scroll the page. I found that annoying.

I am assuming that the drop down menu was fed by xml or a txt doc somewhere. It probably wasn't updated for the post here so I'm less concerned. It would look better had it been associated before being posted for review.

I am going to guess the reason the map goes black is because of the IP access limit for Google Maps.

Overall I like it. Cartoon plane and all.

Posted by:seraph on December 8, 2007 6:40 AM

i know the guy who did the original goggles - will see what he says about this.

he needs either some cash or recognition on the award.

Posted by:Martyn Gooding on January 10, 2008 3:40 AM

Thats for the tip off Martyn. I'm pretty pissed off at this. This looks like a direct copy of my game, with nothing changed except the plane graphics. From first glance it seems like the codes been extracted from the game too (most people who've borrowed my concept changed the idea and at least wrote their own code, like Mark Fennels game Wings ).

Its seems creativity is pretty dead in this industry when even the big boys like S&S have to rip peoples concepts off.

I had S&S LA write to me a year ago asking for tips on using google inside flash for their banner ads and I responded and helped out as much as I could without asking for pay as a matter of courtesy.

Thanks guys. Pat yourselves on the back.

Posted by:Mark Caswell-Daniels on January 10, 2008 3:52 AM

re: mark's post above.
You guys ought to take down this blatant theft of someone else's work. Get your own ideas or pay original creators for their work. You really are v. naughty.

Posted by:Tim Rodger on January 11, 2008 10:03 AM

Naughty, nothing. they are untalented unoriginal greedy shameless scumbags who would sell their own mothers('s ideas) Such a shame that Saatchi & Saatchi didn't hire the talent instead of steal from him and by virtue of that, that the client hired Saatchi & Saatchi. Shame on them all, 'creatives' yeah?

Posted by:Pete on January 11, 2008 12:54 PM

I think it's better to leave this up as an example of how agencies can get it so wrong. They could have paid Mark (probably not a kings ransom either) for his time rather than rip him off.

The fact this made the shortlist for an award is what got me. I spotted the rip right away you think the judges would too.

Posted by:Ashley man on January 11, 2008 7:03 PM

also the spelling mistake is funny too.

Posted by:Ashley on January 11, 2008 7:04 PM

A poor version of something which was avalible a while ago.

even poor research can find that this is totally unoriginal.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Google+Flight+sim

Posted by:Mark B on January 12, 2008 12:20 AM

If those last few post hold any weight, I feel ashamed for Saatchi DE right now - thats as low as you can go.

Posted by:DrJones on January 17, 2008 3:53 PM

I was sad that I couldn't crash the plane.

Posted by:Jim on April 3, 2008 4:44 AM


blog comments powered by Disqus