that makes me smile. but I wish they were different pictures. Not hitler.. chaplin cool. but you know it just evokes something negative with hitler. And that takes away from the idea.

I’m not sure about the choice of people, other than Chaplin, but this really works as an ad for a highlighter. It took a moment or two, but if you look closely, not only is the whole text itself coherent, but the highlighted words read as a single coherent piece of text as well. Whatever else, you have to admire the effort that went into it.

If you want to shock, work in Hitler. If you want to appear progressive, work in Che. And if you want to look really out of touch with popular culture, work in Chaplin. These read like ads created by people with little first-hand knowledge of American culture — and apparently I’m right.

More ad commentary at ttp://craigmcnamara.blogspot.com/

Why are there always people using sentences like “you can’t use Hitler, you mustn’t do that, you shouldn’t bla bla bla”?

Why don’t you look at the idea and discuss it then? I admise using images (e.g. Hitler) for sheer shock value, but this is clever and a lot of craftsmanship went into it.

So respect the freakin’ copywriter/creatives for that! Even though I don’t know Russel, I bow to this piece of work he did.

Fantastic adds. BUT you have to read’em to understand.

it works. looks good too.
IMHO, the choice of people is a little, um.. outdated?
hats off to the copywriter anyways.