Procter & Gamble
I like this campaign for Procter and Gamble, but it’s a little weird that there is no logo anywhere.
Agency: Saatchi & Saatchi, Budapest.
Posted in Print 
Add to del.ici.us 
Digg It
Blogs that link to this post 
Permanent Link
October 15th, 2006 at 12:46 am
[…] Procter & Gamble […]
October 15th, 2006 at 7:14 am
[…] Procter & Gamble […]
October 15th, 2006 at 9:33 am
I really don’t understand what these ads mean. Can any body tell me?
October 15th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Kenvol, the shirts have been faded because of all the washing. This campaign is for a detergent. It’s meant to show you how your clotes fade. Red Hot Chilli Peppers = Pink Hot. It’s taking popular names with colours and using them as if they were faded.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Very ‘deep’ concept.
Linked at AdBlogArabia
October 15th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
It’s a very classic gimmick but still a classic.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
very nice concept. i think the execution falls a little short though.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
I guess not putting a logo on a campaign is easier to do than including the disclaimer “GHOST AD — NEVER RUN.”
October 16th, 2006 at 5:09 am
These are not the executions, these are just T-shirts for the campaign. You can check the real executions on this site, on the right, among the pictures :
(you can also find the logo there:)
http://www.kreativ.hu/cikk.php?id=17068
It won a Silver drum, on the golden drum awards.
October 16th, 2006 at 9:37 am
I don’t get what they’re selling. Dose P&G sell t-shirts? Or light colored dye?
Is it suppose to advertise a wash deteregent that saves colors? Because if it is you need the product somewhere or it doesn’t make sence at all.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:31 am
arent all detergents brands of P&G? So whats the point of showing a logo?
November 10th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
this may help ^^
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2526/ariel1xe5.jpg