July 01 2008
Telecom Faking It (again)
posted by Ana Samways at 9:33 amTelecom NZ has taken an idea from a popular web video for its latest ad, but like Telecom online shopping mall Ferrit (who we outed for writing their own consumer reviews) this ad is also faking it.
The ad, which uses the Elemeno P song “Baby Come On”, suggests that it was filmed in the office of one of their clients, McCallum & Partners, with the actual staff, during Friday night drinks.
However, despite being named at the end of the ad along with the Telecom services that they use, McCallum & Partners is nowhere to be found on the New Zealand Companies Office and Google doesn’t know who they are. A call to Saatchi & Saatchi confirms it’s a “made-up company” and features actors. Well yes, they certainly look like actors. And dancers. Why go to all that effort of creating a fictitious company?
No matter what kind of “ads-are-not-real” spin you put on it, this ad is misleading, especially because Telecom names the fake company and lists the services it provides them with, like it’s some sort of endorsement.
Corporates just don’t get the web. They just can’t recreate that amateur viral charm with a big ad budget.
The video the Telecom campaign was based on (watch it below) was originally made by Connected Venture staff, who are responsible for video sites like Vimeo and CollegeHumor. In the original they lip-synch along to Harvey Danger’s song “Flagpole Sitta”. Seamlessly shot in one take, it features a large number of employees mouthing the words and grooving in their office. It worked because they used real staff who did it for their own amusement with their own skills.
(Hat tip to Timothy from Fifteen.co.nz )
We’d love to know what our readers think, so drop us a comment.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
And what kind of idiot would buy a phone broadband based on that ad?
July 1st, 2008 at 10:56 am
I saw the ad last night and it made me feel sick. I remember the Connected Venture’s video and when I first saw it I thought it was great, what an amazing place to work. The Telcom video just yelled out LAME. It was obviously a big agency created pile of turd.
People, you do not create a ‘viral’ video. You make a great, original video that goes viral. You can’t fake it.
This rubbish just makes me mad.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
Regardless of @Tequila’s comment around whether marketing actually works or not – Telecom makes me want to cry. Snitchty and Bitchy probably charged $500k to do this. I know a bunch of telecom peeps who would have done it in return for some pizza and beers – it’s that chasm again – interwebs for corporates – makes me want to cry
July 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
just another thought – we the digerati think it’s lame – but look at the mass market – maybe they actually kind of like the ad – they haven’t seen the original so maybe to them it’s cool…no?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am
Telecom are so scared of July 11th that they’re getting desperate.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
[...] twitterati, bloggerati and digerati have been quick to lash Telecom, saying it shows no imagination or vision and at first blush I agreed. But then I thought [...]
July 1st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“I know a bunch of telecom peeps who would have done it in return for some pizza and beers”
actully they did, an in house “sync star” has been running over the last week… some of them could be put on tv quite easilly…
and on another note most televion ads imply that the scenario is real when it is made up…its called fiction!
what do you want them to do, play a disclaimer at the beginning?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
@ben The mass market may think it is OK but we the digerati are the ones who are pimping Telecoms latest phones and services. No matter how hard I try to keep out of it I am the one who family and friends come to and ask “what Braodband/phone/computer shall I get”.
We do punch above our weight in terms of influence and making something that appeals to both us geeks and the mainstream would be good practice.
So I do get your point but in the long term I think they need to appeal to both groups.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Tristan: My beef is with the fact they used a faux company McCallum & Partners to mislead viewers into thinking it was a real office/client of Telecom.
By NOT mentioning the company name it would simply a mediocre ripoff of a viral hit and wouldn’t be pulling the wool or making out it’s anything more than that…
July 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Ana, I don’t have a beef with the ceral/shampoo/dishwasher ad that have people claiming they use thier products for thier “family”
I also do not belive that the current ‘families’ on the ANZ ads are real…
And they lie direct to camera…
How is this diffrent?
July 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I appreciate what you’re saying Tristan, but this has been specifically made to look like a client endorsement. (i.e. the fake law firm name)
July 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Ana, how do you know it’s a law firm, it doesn’t say in the ad?
It’s only misleading if people think McCallum & Partners are offering a product or service that you can’t actually get, and since the company doesn’t make any promises it’s a mute point.
The idea to show an office using a Telecom tech. to connect with each other over Friday drinks is fine (you don’t have to like it, I hated SPOT the dog, but he and the ads performed well).
Was the idea ripped off? Probably. Welcome to advertising.
As for the way it’s filmed i.e. by a staff member this just lends to the idea of using more Telecom tech. It never pretends to be more than an ad and if S&S wanted to do viral they would have the site for the company live and allow you join in the song and dance using mobiles and webcams before inviting friends also. They probably wouldn’t have even have even mentioned Telecom until much further down the track.
I suggest you complain to the asa.co.nz and post your compliant and their reply.
PS. I work at an agency but not S&S.
Thanks for letting me have my 2-cents.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Sooo Herald staffers are the new arbiters of cool? WTF!
Yes big corporates and big agencies struggle even with $200K to make an ad but at least they’re giving it a crack.
Doesn’t matter what they try cynics will still bag it.
Since when are hacks any more trustworthy?
Apart from trade journos who’ve kicked around for years most simply take one PR piece, ask for comment from the competitor PR dept and make the rest up. Without having a clue what they’re writing about.
Those who can do
Those who can’t teach
Those who don’t know enough to teach, write for newspapers.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I thought S&S did a good job.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
You’re right Bingo, at least the big corporates and big agencies are “giving it a crack”.
How old are you – 12?
July 1st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
44 Ana, so too old to ‘get it’ right?
Happened to have built some of the most popular community sites in NZ – nothing to do with Telecom either.
Actually, toning down the vitriol, my real point is the irony of harold staff journos on their high horse over ‘faking it’ when most lay journalism in NZ is crap when it comes to ‘hard’ subjects.
Why do I make this claim? I know more than a bit about electrical engineering, aviation, telcos and medicine and most ‘reporting’ misses not only the detail but the nuance of understanding.
I can only assume the myriad areas I know nothing about are equally pathetic.
I have ten years publishiing experience and also help with a lot of big corporate PR so kid myself I have a fair idea what goes on.
Not bad for a 12yo eh?
Where are your technical sub-edits done? In NZ, buy a subby who knows the topic and the local situation? Or in another O’Reilly locale?
Come on, we’re talking truth or fake?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Bingo, you have chosen this legitimate opinion piece, written by me, to have a rant at the Herald. You are waaay off topic. Pull your head in.
I am not a “harold” [sic] staffer. This site is independently owned.
Go here if you want to have a go at Granny Herald for outsourcing their subbing department or their “crap” journalism.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Well, having now seen the original my beef is that the ‘McCallum’ ad is a total rip-off of something created brilliantly by someone else. As much as I dislike Telecom did S&S tell the company that their new ‘ad’ was a blatant copy of someone else’s idea??? I remember, not all that long ago, when S&S used to make great ads. Not copy others work. Badly. It is sad to see how low this once great agency has now stooped.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
If they didn’t have the fake company name then it would be all ok, but to have that just sucks.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Interesting. I seem to remember from a few years back (could be wrong) that the Vodafone ad launching their mobile broadband was almost a direct rip off of an overseas music video. It was the ad with the “krumping” that is soooo popular with the kids right now.
Tried to google it, but haven’t managed to track it down yet.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Hey Bingo, lighten up dude, I always thought Spare Room was supposed to be light hearted and fun… to put a smile on ones face.
At least that’s what it normally does to me.
Roll on July 11.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Did you guys know that the Gorilla in the Cadbury ad is not actually real? Those bastards….
July 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Did you know that the lady in the LTNZ side curtain airbags ad is just an actor? she’s not even disabled.
A fake company name, that doesn’t even compare to that.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I’m surprised that S&S thought that faking ‘McCallum’ was a good idea. It’s in the realm of “Green Washing” like the Genesis ads & positions telecom as a company that lies to us. Hardly the ingredients of a “Love Mark” or the community ethics of web 2.0. Shame on you S&S. Sort it out Kevin Roberts.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
There is an actual McCallum Partners, albiet ‘McCallum Marketing Partners’ in Australia. They’re partnered with STARCOM, a Publicis Groupe media agency which operates within Saatchi & Saatchi in New Zealand.
Who knows, maybe they lent their name?..
As per the actual office, I’d be inclined to say that it is actually Saatchi’s-own on the Strand in Parnell.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 am
I almost fell for the Telecom “McCallum & Partners” fake law firm ad. However I became suspicious at the number of hot chicks that worked there. I then assumed that it was a PR or Marketing company, but realised that was not the case when there were no baggies of P lying on any of the desks.
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 am
I loved that ad and feel a little ripped off that it isn’t a real company! LOL
I think it is misleading.. and I think it’s intentionally misleading which is worse to me.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 am
I guess Telecom suggesting to customers “Lets go Crazy” is quite a good marketing ploy, or maybe the only one they have left…
After all, who in their right mind would do business with the Robert Mugabe of the NZ business world now that they have a choice!
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 am
almost fell 4 it-worst thing is now my work mates are aware i think there all dull and none of the chicks are hot all because of this ad
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
Ana – Where is the story here? Is it really a revelation to you that advertisers use actors and fictitious scenarios to market their products? Regardless of whether McCallum and Partners are real or otherwise, the ad’s intention is clearly to remind you of the tech telecom offers, and the fun you could have with using it. Did you think Spot was a real-life character? Would it upset you to know that not only did he not ‘endorse’ Telecom, but he also had absolutely no concept of what a Telephone is or what it is for?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
It is misleading,
I and I’m sure a lot of others thought it was McCallum Peterson for a while…
… who I’m sure wouldn’t want to be linked with the bunch of muppets on the Telecom ad.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Steve, you sound like a Telecom PR. Are you?
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
Go easy on them, it’s simply another case of schoolboy errors from a couple of old dogs. In reality Telecom & the agency are doing the public a service by promoting the fact that while they may claim to understand it, they just don’t get it. Caveat emptor!
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
Get a grip.
Are you telling me those folks in the Big Wednesday ads aren’t actually winners? There really isn’t a Milky Bar kid? Vince Martin doesn’t actually work for Beaurepaires? All my illusions have been destroyed.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Wow, people didn’t dance along to music and pretend to sing before that ‘viral’ video came out?
Luckily we have Youtube to give us ideas huh? Otherwise nobody would have thought of singing along to a song!
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
No HeySeus – maybe you should read it again (or at least add something new to the conversation). We know they’re performers. But by attaching the ‘& Partners’ name and specifying the services they use, it oversteps the mark and appears to be an endorsement of Telecom services.
This ad is being broadcast on more than one medium — it’s running online as well as on TV. Which is the same medium the idea was lifted from. Except the original did feature the staff at a real company.
And I think we can safely say that Vince Martin (or the actor who plays him) DOES work for Beaurepaires — he just doesn’t fit tyres. Whereas the performers here DON’T work for a company called McCallum & Partners.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
This is monstrously bad advertising and nothing short of idea theft. This from the same agency whose creative heads spent a week in Cannes just recently pissing in swimming pools while picking up minor metal for their “important” clients like (feel free to ask “who?) Power Horse Energy Drink. Shame & Shame.
All that said, would I resort to this if it was what it took to retain my, and NZ’s, biggest client?
Probry.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Well it’s kind of a current trend isn’t? Something’s created that breaks through the clutter, then the next thing you know it’s been hijacked by an agency to reflect the ‘good times’ value of a brand or corporation,
Attached is a fascinating/frightening look at how the Flight of the Conchords have been ripped off by various agencies around the world for all manner of seemingly un-related product.
http://www.creativereview.co.uk/crblog/flight-of-the-concoors/
Personally, I like the Telecom spot (down boy!) but liked it more before I knew it was lifted. Shame though not to include the ‘Clever Toy’ Lion enjoying a martini amongst the Friday night fun.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Bingo – you did get off base but you’re spot on about lazy journos. I particularly like when a tv station leads with exactly the same angle (and same words) as a radio station.
Guys – don’t be surprised if S&S are ripping off You Tube clips- the average age in creative their is not much more than 15/16 so obviously they are on You Tube and getting inspiration from it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I’m not really a fan of the ad but it’s kinda entertaining. I’m surprised everyone is so offended that it’s not a real company. Who cares? They’re obviously actors because they are way too slick for office knobs.
Spoiler alert: ASB Bank’s Goldstein isn’t really a bank spy…
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Excellent debate about this travesty caused by corporate media indulgence. Must really suck working for Darth Telecom
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Wasn’t misled by the ad – who really believes what they see in ads anyway?
It was crap though.
S&S shouldn’t take all the blame tho – it’s gotta be tough pitching anything that’s actually new to a client that takes ther term ‘marketing by committee’ to new depths.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
in the ‘most trusted companies in NZ’ survey just published, Telecom comes in at a modest 112, behind such luminary household brands as Avon and Hitachi.
Is it any wonder when their ads consist of stealing ideas off youtube?
Saatchis and telecom – you’ve gone to a new low, even for your sorry asses
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Well, fro the point of view of a decisionmaker in SME telecoms provisioning, I’d say it’s definitely chirpy: +5 points. Everyone remembers it being for Telecom: +10 points. It’s clearly an expensive ad made by a fancy agency, because it’s a very close 90% of the flavour of a home-made viral but with a few giveaways: +5 points for not being hideous; -5 points for the guy in the white shirt being a scene-stealing cringe-monster. It’s revealed as being a ripoff, without being satire or homage: a shameful -20 points. It showcases a fake company without adding any cues that the company might be fake: -5 points (kinda who cares? It’s an ad…). It does nothing to help me understand telecom, its products or services, or why I as an SME decisionmaker should choose telecom: -100 points. And it suggests telecom is in some way responsible for hilarity at Friday night drinks: -200 giant-corporate-appropriates-irrelevant-pop-culture-to-claim-it’s-down-with-the-kids points. That’s a fairly hefty net -310 on the agency “Am I happy to spend my client’s money interrupting a broad audience’s TV-viewing evening to blare this at them — expecting exactly what to happen? — and later expose it to the interweb under the name of one of the world’s top creative agencies when the thing I borrowed it off is already fairly well known?” Scale.
Plus, I saw the billboard this morning and it meant *nothing* to me until I saw this thread. Extra bonus -50 points for frustrating me on the way to the office…
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
The other interesting thing with this ad is that the video ‘quality’ doesn’t seem to stack up. I would love to know whether they actually filmed it with a mobile phone (AND one that was available on Telecom’s network). If they didn’t then it would be false advertising and the should be taken to task over this.
Anyone from Saatchi’s care to comment?
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
excuse my ignorance. What’s happening on July 11 that Telecom are so scared about?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
A large asteroid is due to hit downtown Parnell on July 11th. Most people won’t notice.
Otherwise, Vodafone starts offering the new generation iPhone then as well.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
it’s funny that everyone hates on telecom so much… sure, they’re a pain in the arse sometimes but they are a locally owned company unlike vodafone which is a giant global corporate. advertising is advertising and usually draws inspiration from many different sources – everything’s been done before. and many people have done the lipsync thing. it’s advertising take from it what you want, argue about something worth arguing.
yes i work for saatchis – but in sydney not NZ
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Ana – no, I am not Telecom PR, but hey I’d do it if it pays enough! As for you, you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist – are you?
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Ana, I don’t want to make you even angrier, but did you know Saatchis did the Anchor family ads too, and the family wasn’t real!
I agree with bboybri, I think a lot of this is just telecom haters. I have shares in telecom, I don’t hate them, at least they are Kiwi owned. They’ve made many mistakes, but I’d rather use them than vodafone for everything (except mobiles)
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Maybe you are all doing exactly what Telecom and the Agency wanted…people to talk about it. Move on.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
bboybri… we hate telecom because they remind us of the corporate rape and pillage of the 80s… and they’re not a NZ owned company, they are a publicly listed entity that has shareholding from around the world. vodafone are still living off the last of the fumes of the challenger they once were. but are beginning to be hated just as much but still maintain the position as the lesser of the two evils
saatchis… inspiration is one thing but this is a wholesale blatant rip off. it gets noticed and shamed (hopefully). like the Sony bunnies and the VW parts ads before them (but at least they were decent facsimiles) this should show the ‘creatives’ up for what they are – or are not.
telecom… you can’t fool us with your cynical, down home, home grown, cheap as (yeah right) advertising. it makes you look more like a greedy inhuman corporate with a dishonest and manipulative bent. Thanks for pushing us from the first to the second worlds – telecoms-wise. we hate you because you no longer reflect our culture.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Yes, ads reference crazy ideas done by artists or the public at large all the time. However, IMHO this example draws a little too close from its source material for it to be taken seriously by peers and friends in the industry.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Don’t tell me the babies in the hyundai ad aren’t real? I thought they really were driving the cars?
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
spot the dog. the hyundai babies. the anchor family. the anz people. vince martin. et al. were fictional characters – we all know that.
all you Saatchis trolls are missing the point. The cynical use of a faux testemonial coupled with a near shot for shot rip off wrapped up in the ‘we’re down to earth and one of the proles’ execution… it just reeks of something jaded and unpleasant.
if you honestly believe it’s a great ad that’s representative of the quality we’ve come to expect from both Telecom and Saatchis. Then now is the time to take up accounting (apologies to any accountants).
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
at least it makes the ‘original’ Hallensteins stuff look good. LOL.
defend the indefensible bboybri. sounds like a new Saatchis motto?
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
unbundled bitterness: my last post didn’t make it – i think i used a rude word… ohhhhhh!
hey it’s just an ad – some you’re proud of… others you just have to roll with.
haven’t seen the hallensteins stuff.
defend the indefensible? sounds like a motto for all agencies not just saatchis.
it’s a funny game isn’t it?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I take my hat off to Westpac. My kids do ads and their agent rang when they were casting the ads and my kids could only try out if they were actually Westpac customers. Unfortunately they weren’t but it gave Westpac some credibility in my eyes.
July 4th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Uhhh.. Mark – Yeah, the Westpac ads are done by Saatchi aswell.
July 4th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Yeah, but I bet it was a Westpac directive that the people be real customers. It’s not a Saatchi issue with me just whether an advertiser has the credibility to use ‘real’ people. I know most ads are performed by actors playing a part like the woman playing the brain damaged woman in the side airbag ad. It may be because I really empathised with her initially that I felt a bit let down when I heard she was an actress. She played the part well though.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Ana next you’ll be telling us the guy playing the drums in the cadbury ad’s not Phil Collins
July 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Another rip-off is the State Insurance ad with the guy walking around hazards with the “fake legs”. The concept must have been taken from this Japanese TV show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqxjX438hWg
July 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Why thanks very much, however, sorry to disappoint you further Mark but it actually was me who played that actress playing the brain damaged woman. They were looking for an ordinary bloke for the role. I auditioned and, whaddya know, got the job!
July 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
You will find below a copy of an e mail that I sent to the top brass at S&S today
Dear Sirs,
There are, in my humble opinion, a great many, what I consider, “idiot adverts” on television but the McAllum & Partners commercial, which I believe is your company’s “creation,” ( and I use the word loosely) really takes the cake, never mind the biscuit.
I have never written to complain about an advertisement before, but I felt so strongly about this one that I decided to make an exception. I did a search for “McAllum & Partners” and discovered that it was a fictitious outfit and that the advert was for Telecom. Are Telecom now trying to compete with Vodophone as to who can put the most idiotic adverts on the box?
Thank heaven indeed for the remote, which enables me to either just silence the unintelligible rubbish being spouted or change channels altogether.
Yours, far from impressed,
Geoff. Waterhouse
July 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The most annoying thing about the telecom ad is that it is such a complete rip off of the creative ventures video, right down to the ‘Friday drinks’ and ’started up by hot chick’ themes.
Also annoying is the fake company. Now, I know that almost all ads use actors, but this one delibrately tries to give the impression that it was done by the workers of this company for fun.
July 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Hi everyone. Why is there so much hate against telecom? did you have experiences with them? i have got experience with both Telecom and Vodafone and I tell you don’t ever deal with Vodafone, not for broadband at least. I got f*kng con by bloody Vodafone. It cost me nearly a 1000 dollars for 7GB they did not explain me properly about extra charges. They are the thieves!! the bloody vodafone. Whereas Telecom has the best broadband (im currently using woosh anyway by contract) I know this space is to comment about the ad but I think Telecom is the best and I love the ad, especially the girls on it, they are obviouslly actors, did you expect such girls in a real company? even if the company was a real one they still should have put actors. the ad is awesome guys and cheap too which makes it even nicer and humane
July 4th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Ana, your legitimate opinion’s key argument is that the ad is faking it.
It’s an AD.
Ad’s are fake.
My legitimate opinion is that it’s rich for journos to criticise faking it when they do it all the time.
How this is off topic is beyond me – a big part of this topic is your accusation and I’m commenting on the irony.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I don’t know if this matters to anyone… But, some of you might not realize that ‘Connected Ventures’ is a division of Barry Diller’s IAC Interactive. It is a company that passes over $8.5 Billion in revenue a year.
Jakob designed this video to do exactly what the Telecom marketers were wanting to do – be a revenue generator.
I guess it is pretty stupid (telecom) not just picking a random law firm in Auckland to do their ad – but you can understand why, it is better if you have a slightly more choreographed recording for TV Spots.
Cheers,
Will
July 4th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Of course its a fake law firm – real NZ law firms don’t have that much diversity.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The best tag line for this ad would be “its not what we are drinking its how we are drinking”
July 4th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Law firm? Looks more like and Ad agency to me!
Sure it’s ripped off, but so what, it’s still entertaining. In saying that, it’s a shame that Saatchi’s couldn’t have been more original.
But……the ad is clearly misleading by implying at the end that the fictitious company (having so much fun) uses the telecom services listed (and ultimately has “so much fun” using these products and services in the process). This regardless of how much anyone actually enjoys the feeling of the ad implies that people generally have fun when dealing with Telecom and we all know that this is most definitely not the case in a majority of scenarios.
Probably the only viral part of this ad that deserves any recognition is the debate that it has caused here.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:28 am
willville makes a good point. Why should we discredit Telecom, just because it’s worse at making faux- Not for profit Viral Videos, than Media Conglomerate ‘IAC’s Jakob Lodwick.
Let’s not forget this is Telecom we’re talking about.
They can’t get me an internet connection that rivals third world African nations – not to mention last year’s burst bubble.
Any law firm worth its salt would sooner put their name next to “Clark Cullen ‘08″ than jump on that sinking ship.
FAIL!
July 5th, 2008 at 12:34 am
well i think this ad is just plain bad. i always thought it was “try-hard”, but seeing the the firm used was fake that is not surprising. i can’t see how this ad would even go near the traditional telecom business customer.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Well I thought I was quite good in it. Second ‘hot chick’ from left, third row back.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:03 am
This is just another typical attempt at Telecom bashing. The definition of advertising is to try and promote your product to stay in peoples minds. This advert, like it or not, does that. Its something new to a good part of NZ who don’t watch viral videos.
As to whether or not the company is real or not, did you know that all those celebrities who promote products on TV are PAID to do so? And yet if they were as excessivly happy about the product they are promoting, surely they would be willing to do it for free?
It seems that the Telecom bashers are really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel on this one.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Luckily the majority of people have grown good bullshit detectors, because it simply is a crap ad for a crap company selling crap things so who cares.
Nothing is real on tv its for entertainment including the news (shock horror) maybe the only real thing about this is the muppets that think it is anything more than a lame ad for things you don’t need. Move on everyone
July 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
@Esteban: 1000 dollars for 7GB? I find that extremely hard to believe. Not to mention the fact that if you go over your cap, you are rate-limited to 64kbps.
You picked the wrong fact to bullshit with, given that the I paid $300 for going 15GB over my cap when I was with XTRA on the Pro Advanced plan is the reason reason I switched from XTRA to Vodafone, since I got a bigger cap, ADSL2, still with a lesser fee overall than XTRA, as well as, NO OVERAGE CHARGES.
Vodafone isn’t exactly a paragon of good corporate behaviour (they just happen to be smaller in NZ, or did), but you’re just talking out of your ass, and spreading bullshit.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I can’t believe how much hype has been created over an ad! That fact that you are all bitching about the fake company means you are paying no attention to the ad at all! The ad is merely demonstrating the Telecom products.
Get a grip people, get a grip.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Chris B. I agree that a lot in this blog is Telecom bashing & the truth of the matter is that Telecom is made up of a lot of good Kiwis doing a good job. However, there is good reason for for people to bash Telecom Corp because it has a history of advertising that is designed to program us. Ask any Media student and they will describe the many facets of Telecom Corp propaganda. It’s no secret.
The idea of Advertising “to stay in peoples minds” also needs to take into account Public Relations (the good kind; not propaganda) and Brand Values. I bet that the ad wasn’t meant to have such a negative response & miss their target audience.
Telecom needs to change its marketing firm and corporate policy if it is to survive the internet age. I’m not a Vodafone fan either but at least they are experimenting with internet business models that require community and trust – wait to see if they can pull it off though cause we still have some of the most expensive mobile services in the World.
brynn
July 6th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Typical Telecon touchy feely advertising. If they (Telecon) actually had the balls to say ’sorry’ to the people of NZ for leaving them to flounder whist ripping them off for years they might have a chance. Personally I hope the company crashes and burns. The government (and thats both sides of the house) are as much to blame for not acting ten years ago, leaving the country well behind the IT eight ball. Mind you all those MP’s frequently enjoy the Telecon cooperate hospitality I’ll bet! Bast@rds the lot of them.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
THEY’RE HUMAN! What you don’t realize is that Telecom is making all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about them…
LEAVE THEM ALONE! You are lucky they even perform for you BAST@RDS!
LEEEAVE TELECOM ALLLLLONE!…..Please.
…Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash some company who are going through a hard time.
Leave Telecom Alone Please…. Leave Telecom alone…right now….I mean it.
Anyone that has a problem with them you deal with me, because they’re not well right now. Leave them alone.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
“The ad is merely demonstrating the Telecom products” is the surface meaning but then ask yourself “Why those actors? That age group? That office? Who are the leading actors and why? What ethnicities? Why a YouTube style? Why do they imply the office is real? Why associate Mobile phone, Broadband with Friday drinks? Million bucks for an ad gets you a whole lot more than actors dancing around an office
July 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
James,
he might have been talking about mobile data. a couple of years ago $1000 for 7GB wasn’t out of the question (especially if roaming).
however, using 7Gb of overage on a mobile data plan is pretty retarded.
Personally I think the ad is pretty cool. It’s like an homage to the connected ventures vid (which was also a form of marketing) and all the many many similar vids that have come since then (like the digg one.
I thought it was obvious that it wasn;t a real company, and anyone who thought it was is pretty dumb IMO.
three main reasons:
1) the chicks are waaay to hot.
2) the quality is waay too high for being filmed with an Okta touch phone.
3) the guy who is the main dancer was also in the mountain dew ad. (the last one was what really gacve it away).
I think if telecom intended you to think it was a real company they would have just used a real company. making a vid liek that isn’t too hard. they used real people for the ‘come together’ ads last year so it’s not like they don’t ever do that.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Hey James W. you have made a bad choice on joining Vodafone, I hope ur experience don’t go as bad the one i had. I had internet connection with them, it was a vodem device, 40 dollars p/month and over that vodafone does not slow down ur connection it keeps charging you at some expensive shit, make sure you read ur contract or else u’ll get f*cked. the vodem did not measure the usage properly and its thats why i got f*cked by then. they really con me. i tell you, hey guys all do ur own research if ur interested, take a look at this i.e. http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/node/4671 they were actually charged me almost 2000 dollars but cuz i complain they put it down to little less than 1000 shit!!! Vodafone is crap, Telecom the best, i wish i could join them but I moved home too often, thats why i got woosh now and this last one is too slow (Im talking about internet)
July 7th, 2008 at 1:23 am
I, too dislike the ad.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I fail to see any drinks anywhere in the ad. The only reference to drinks is the text at the end.
So, why does everyone assume the video is being filmed during Friday drinks?
Stuart, you sound like you are Telecom’s guardian angel!
P.S. The hottest chick IMO is the one by the door before it goes into the room with computers and flying paper.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:38 am
I wonder if the ad will be stopped and replaced with a ‘Telecom is New Zealand’ ad, which will be even more amusing given the point raised that they are over three quarters foreign owned. I bet they will, to the joy of readers of this blog.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hiya Brynn,
The reason the advert was created as it was is pretty simple, they wanted to advertise to the next generation of potential Telecom customers and those are the YouTubers.
I actually like the advert, its fun and different and way better IMO that Vodafones attempts with those adverts about getting a second life and people dancing in cow costumes.
As you mentioned there is a lot of unjustified Telecom bashing here. Sure, Telecom hasn’t necessarily done EVERYTHING it could have to bring high speed fibre optic to NZ however its a private company and certainly had no requirement to do so when the investment may not have been profitable.
If you want to bash anyone, bash the government for being stupid enough to sell a valuable asset like phone lines into private hands. Bashing a business for acting like a business is like punishing a child for being to young!
July 7th, 2008 at 9:06 am
It’s a fake company agreed, but why would you expect to find it at companies office even if it was real?
In the ad it says “McCalllum and Partners” which implies it is a simple partnership. It would only show up on companies office if it was a limited company (which it definitely isn’t because you can’t call a limited company “XXX & partners” or a limited liability partnership, which is unlikely because they have to call themselves “XXXX & partners LLP”
Simple partnerships don’t have to register themselves at companies office.
James W: see my prediction came true.
he wa using overage on a vodem i.e. mobile data.
Now that would partly be vodafones fault for marketing the vodem to people who should be fine with a fixed line connection, but mostly his fault for expecting a mobile data device to have cheap overage rates, despite it almost certianly being spelled out in the contract what they would be.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I cant beleive what most of you are writing. Previous telecom ad used stuffed toys and was the biggest load of rubbish ever. It would appear that most of you believed the stuff toys were really alive. Isnt it obvious if its an AD then its not really real. Have you all been living in a cave? This ad is actually good fun, the music is great and the acting is great, its a refreshing change from hundreds of other rubbish ads that no one is complaining about.Get over it.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:20 am
What triggered my scorn, and I’m surprised no-one has mentioned it yet, is that ‘Friday night drinks’ has been taxed out of existence for some years. Even for law firms. So I wasn’t really surprised to hear the company doesn’t exist.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Ana – look at the name:
McCalllum
Mc-Call-lum
Mc Call Them
Get it?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am
That’s a bit of a stretch.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Redhead: maybe you should look for a new job.
We still get drinks every friday from 4pm and so do several of my other corporate type buddies working around auckland.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Hey Stuart,
LEAVE THEM ALONE! You are lucky they even perform for you BAST@RDS!
LEEEAVE TELECOM ALLLLLONE!…..Please.
Can you please please please get a webcam and a bed sheet, and some eyeliner and do that again for a YouTube clip?
Kthxbai.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am
For those who say “ads are fake by definiton – get over it” I have to ask, what’s the point of them then?
Fake endorsements for fake products? Surely if the products or services are good, they don’t need fake endorsements?
Is it good practice to treat your customers like idiots who can’t tell the difference between fake and real? Does that create positive feelings towards your products and services?
There’s nothing wrong with being sceptical about advertising, but from there to accepting falsehoods… aren’t you being losers?
July 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Hi. Well I read the blog and started on the comments, but gave up after the first 30 or so. I really don’t see the big deal. I like the add; I think it’s fun, and the song is great (go kiwi music). I don’t think it’s misleading. I’ve worked in plenty of fun, vibrant offices that while they may not put on a musical do love to drink, play music and race around the office on a Friday night come pay week!
I don’t care that it’s not real – very little advertising on TV shows real people enjoying a company’s products or services.
Even Westpac/ANZ and other banks showing ‘real’ people or celebrities are still scripted – some more than others (and did anyone think they might actually be getting paid to be themselves). Telecom’s ‘Connecting New Zealander’s’ TV campaign featuring real people sitting on a couch was good example and gave the people staring some genuine surprises. But what about Telstra Clear’s dragging countries closer – I don’t expect my internet or phone connection to literally do that, or that by going with Vodafone will I be able to walk into a store and buy a pack of boobs off the shelf. Personally I think this is just a case New Zealander’s getting grumpy and over-reacting again (and yes I’m a Kiwi). Surely there are bigger problems to deal with? Why not contribute something worthwhile towards those instead?
In closing I couldn’t care less about the add being fake. It does illustrate what can be done and the fun that can be had with their products, which my guess is would have been their point. Get over it and move on already.
To clear up another point someone had about Telecom not being NZ owned. Telecom is, and will always remain effectively a NZ owned company, as the majority of shares will always remain in NZ hands. They have to, due to an agreement when Telecom was purchased off the government, called Kiwi Share. So while it’s masters may be foreign, they have a legal obligation to return the majority of share profits to New Zealanders. I know because I am a shareholder, and that’s only part of the story; there are other obligations that Telecom has due to it’s somewhat unique status.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Juha:
There is a difference between a fake endorsement and advertising.
If a company says that Jonah Lomu loves their product and uses it every day when in actual fact hes never heard of it, then thats a fake endorsement.
However making up a fictional charactor, place or in Telecoms case company and then showing that company in a bizzare situation which is fairly obviously a set up, is not a fake endorsement.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
What about the text at the end, which names the company and the products it uses? Doesn’t that give the impression of being an endorsement?
Again, we’re not saying the perfomers come across as anything but performers — we don’t think that’s where the misleading bit is. It’s the text at the end — ‘McCallum & Partners – Mobile, Broadband, Friday Drinks’ — which is the final impression the viewer is left with.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
It’s ineluctable that the commercial definitely comes across as a fake endorsement.
As Steven points out, the text at the end gives you that impression. There’s nothing to suggest otherwise, like fine print saying “McCallum and Partners is a fictitious company.”
Without the text at the end, well, the ad wouldn’t have looked like an endorsement.
You have to ask too why a company like Telecom would do this?
July 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Steven, to me that seems more like saying that ‘using telecom products is a recipe for success’
i.e. company X + mobile phone + Broadband + friday drinks = fun fun fun.
or something like that.
I really don’t see the ad as an endoresement.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Consider if they hadn’t put some form of company name at the end would the advert have anywhere near as much effect?
If your going to ask companies to make disclosures for everything that is fake in their adverts then adverts will have to be considerably longer as if your adding small print you must allow time for the viewer to read it in the advertising.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Again BobJoinsoin — I’m just reading the bit at the end. It names them — it doesn’t say ‘company X’. It doesn’t say ‘Somewhere in Auckland, Friday Night Drinks’.
That said – and now that this conversation has been going around in circles for close to a week — I’ve noticed where the online version of the ad links to. At http://www.telecomad.co.nz/ they’re pushing a competition to get people using their phones: “Get your mates together, add some friday night drinks then capture all the action on your new OKTA Touch.”
So maybe the ad is falling victim to trying to serve several mediums — including online and TV — at once. However, I still don’t agree with the use of a company (or partnership) name linked to Telecom products that they would use if the company was real.
In recent years there has been a trend towards using real people in ads – Telecom themselves used the connecting real New Zealanders approach, a Wrightson TVC used real people in a rural setting (the one with the Creedence song) and TVNZ does it with promo spots. Now it’s reached the point where it can be confusing if advertisers chop and change between actors and real folk but keep the appearance of “real people” through both approaches.
Has been interesting seeing how much debate this thread has generated (much more than we ever intended). Above all it shows how much scrutiny Telecom – and Saatchi & Saatchi — come under from the public. Give us a fun ad and we still moan about it…
We’ll close the comments thread off soon, so if anyone still wants to write a comment, best you do it soon. Thanks to all who have said their two cents worth on either side– and anyone whose advertising budget was considerably larger than that.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
what I don’t get about that Okta Touch competition is that it doesn’t have video – only pictures. Go figure.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Chris – it does have video (not as good quality as in the ad unfortunately) but it is definitely there.
http://www.oktamobile.com/touch_key_features.php
then click on specifications. down the bottom you will see “video capability – Yes, record and play”
July 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yet another NZ advertising agency blatantly stealing ideas off the web and passing them off as their own. Case in point, the Tower Insurance campaign with the figures in blue is a shameless rip-off of a series of Japanese performances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dcmDscwEcI
Being influenced by other ideas is one thing, but this is just lazy thieving.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
@BobJoinsoin. I think you just outed yourself as a Telecom associate/employee.
Enlighting debate… who’d have thunk that the Hyundai babies were fake… or that smart creative people sometimes lack the moral fibre of the rest of us.
At the end of the day Telecom will be happy it’s being discussed – no such thing as bad press after all – the cost of the negative side of this will be borne by the good name of Saatchis.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
unbundled bitterness: right, so someone who know sa bit about tech, owns a telecom product, and is able to find a link to confirm it’s specification, must be an employee. riiiiight.
I have an Okta touch so I knew it definitely had video (and that the quality was nowhere near as good as the ad).
that was the first relevant link that came up when I googled it. (interestingly it doesn;t actually say it has video on telecom’s website – the first place I tried, which seems wierd considering they are using to promote making videos)
July 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I saw the link to this fake ad a few times last week on MSN each time I logged out of Hotmail, and dismissed the ad without even bothering to open the link based on the image of the guy in the elevator with the really bad faux hawk haircut and headphones in his ears (could tell it was SOULLESS corporate propaganda straight away…)
I just watched the ad, and yes it looks straight away faux viral (crap music for a start, and over earnest and the animation on the computer screen on a desk as the camera pans past is too well timed and slick, its enough to make the makers of Russian Ark blush!) and the ad is similar to that Lion Red ad a few years back i.e. faux corporate drinks in an office…
This is the kind of crass and soulless social marketing that is being peddled by the likes of the Satchi guru Kevin Roberts at the moment (Lovemarks anyone?).
On Radio New Zealand National a few weeks ago there was an excellent piece on social marketing on the Sunday Morning show with Chris Laidlaw (it can be downloaded as a Podcast too).
This kind of soulless corporate crap makes me want to start reading the latest copy of AdBusters…
Shame on you Telecom (well you have always been crass, commerical, soulless and shameless…) and Satchi for being TRY HARD faux viral, though I am sure there are plenty of fools out there who still think the ad is cool.
How mainstream and boring it actually is! Yay to the FAKERS!
July 7th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
yeah I got the details about the Okta Touch from Telecom’s online shop, which says it doesn’t support video; how strange that it does.
As for you Nick, sounds like you’ve been brushing up on your hippy lingo, and used almost every cliche description available to describe Telecom! Hey that’s your choice. But the music definately aint crap! That’s ElmenoP – choice NZ band and a mean live act.
Also I find all the attacks on Satchi’s a little strange – I mean attacking an advertising company that has made quite a few humourous and sometimes touching advertisements over the years, and is rather successful, and calling them Try Hard? I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting Kevin on a couple of occassions (and no I’m not a labour MP) and have to say he’s a very passionate believer in NZ and using business to change the world for the better; and a very inspiring man he is.
It’s quite true they say those who can’t do, critise. But your words did make me laugh!
July 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
geez jamesssssss no one gets the point telecom hand tas been mentioed thousand times vodaphone one time whoosh once – whats advertising about – and whose the winner in all this – not vodaphone – and then theres the music – possibly the catchiest tune this side of the ocean – and all of new zealand is talking about telecom….
July 7th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
oops, just read my post, should really turn on the light….
July 8th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Chris said “To clear up another point someone had about Telecom not being NZ owned. Telecom is, and will always remain effectively a NZ owned company, as the majority of shares will always remain in NZ hands. They have to, due to an agreement when Telecom was purchased off the government, called Kiwi Share. So while it’s masters may be foreign, they have a legal obligation to return the majority of share profits to New Zealanders. I know because I am a shareholder, and that’s only part of the story; there are other obligations that Telecom has due to it’s somewhat unique status.” The 49.9% limit in the Kiwi Share refers to any one foreign shareholder not all. http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage____29674.aspx
July 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I thought it was an ad for Friday night drinks. Looked like a weird company with too many yahoos but made me think of rejoining the workforce. Took this web site to make me realise it was about Telecom – haha.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Hey I reckon any publicity is good publicity. Good on them for making a crap fake add and getting everyone to talk about them!
July 9th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
[...] Telecom “viral” video is causing consternation to some bloggers. Get the topline on it [...]
July 11th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I’m not surprised it’s fictional, I’m surprised anyone thought otherwise (particuarly anyone with any media sense). I mean seriously, it’s a light hearted, engaging ad NOT targeted at you people. This ad has not been produced to click with a media savvy audience, it’s about the mainstream – in the vein of 2Tube programmes etc etc. Your ‘disdain’ is a little over the top don’t you think?
July 12th, 2008 at 7:24 am
cheers ana. remember the telecom ad showing people arriving at an airport intl gate (sorry, can’t find it on youtube)? ignoring for a moment that it was more appropriate for air nz commercial, it was a blatant s&s ripoff of ‘love actually’. personally, i think the agency deserves at least/more blame and it’s time that it’s dropped. spot the dog was a long time ago
July 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
If you don’t already have broadband, chances are that you don’t surf too many video sites. It just takes too long. So you probably wouldn’t realise that Telecom’s ad was actually a cut/paste of someone else’s concept. I’m wondering if telecom even knew?
Seems that this campaign is targetting the stodgy old 40somethings who have thus far resisted the 21st century. When they get Broadband from telecom, they’ll probably think it’s great.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
If telecom were to advertise Mccullum and partners as a reference site or part of their portfolio of clients, it would be against trading standards. I cant see how this is different. On top of the that ad is complete rubbish. It looses all the originals genuine feel. The lead singing dancing young dude makes me ill. There arent that many 20 something staff even in NZ. Theyre all living in bedsits in London getting wasted on their OEs.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I dont have a issue with the ad really, its advertising and it gets the views attention because of the unusal filming style etc. It seems to do a better job at advertising the fake firm than it does to Telecom….. how does a firm having fun relate at all to the services that Telecom offers.
Anyway, I really like the music. Good showcase of good NZ Music!
July 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
The only issue here is the total creative bankruptcy of an advertiser and their agency who steal other people’s ideas. There is no point in ever rating the ad by any standard once you acknowledge they had’t the originality to come up with a great idea themselves. Pathetic.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Ana,
I am searching for your column decrying the use of ‘fake’ people in the Big Wednesday ads where the people are specifically named along with their profession, but I can’t find it anywhere.
You must have done one as these ads have been around much longer than the telecom ad and follow the same principles.
Does anyone have a link to that article?
July 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The column decrying the use of ‘fake’ people in the Big Wednesday ad is here.
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Well I work for a McCulloch & Partners – and you won’t find that in the companies website either – cos its a partnership not a company!
Anyway – we’ve gotten a lot of feedback from clients who’ve seen the ad and taken a second look – misreading it for us. Even I did the first time!
Everyone seems to love the ad, regardless of whether its real or not.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Hey, the reason McCallum & Partners sucks is that S&S try to make out Telecom as hip and cool except Telecom is a bit like dad at your disco having a dance. S&S had to make up a mythical place because sure as hell no cool consumers are into Telecom. Give it up make an advert that says we will charge you heaps for sub standard internet & other services it will be more honest!!!
P.S. the airbag women from LTSA makes me laugh I impersonate her every time I see the advert.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Gee whiz
Thanks everyone for a really interesting discussion about a 30 second ad selling telephones.
I think its a great ad – and came on the net to find a video of it.
Of course, I had no idea that so much of the fabric of our society depended on whether or not it was real!
Ana and fellow Telecom bashers – you all seem like terribly clever people.
Shame all that intelligence is wasted on arguing over a 30 second bit of fun.
You should think about applying those angry noggins of yours on weightier issues like whether or not Red Bull really does give you wings. If it does, then maybe that explains how those people in the Air NZ ads manage to jump out of windows and fly off to see their loved ones.
Next you’ll be telling me that the Pukeko’s in that Genesis ad don’t really own that Mount Eden villa…….
October 6th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
[...] from popular forum searches come into their own. They help capture both the support for, and the slams to your brand. Reading posts such as this one from service providers who are embracing the space is [...]
October 11th, 2008 at 11:29 am
okay… i know this conversation is long dead but besides my comment about ‘love actually’ and the arrival terminal at the telecom ad, here’s another with striking similarities -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuL718OIXe4&NR=1 and http://www.slingmedia.com/get/ad-skydive.html
December 27th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
The conversation is not dead.
This is the most meaningful video I have seen in my life, and I am constantly sharing it with people at work. Whether they like it or not.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:12 am
[...] Telecom advert was questioned mid last year for it’s originality and use of a fake company. Is the creative world running [...]
December 26th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
think its a great ad – and came on the net to find a video of it.
Of course, I had no idea that so much of the fabric of our society depended on whether or not it was real!
Ana and fellow Telecom bashers – you all seem like terribly clever people.
Shame all that intelligence is wasted on arguing over a 30 second bit of fun….
onlineuniversalwork