DDB Melbourne brings “Simon, Tahiti” back to life with Cussons Imperial Leather Foamburst TVC
DDB Group Melbourne has returned the immortal phrase “Simon, Tahiti” to Australian TV after more than three decades’ absence, by reinventing the classic Cussons Imperial Leather commercial.
However instead of soap, this incarnation of the ad marks the launch of Cussons Imperial Leather Foamburst, a product designed for use in the shower rather than the bath.
A move that, according to group creative director of DDB Melbourne, Brendon Guthrie, presented some interesting technical challenges.
Says Guthrie: “Obviously baths hide a lot of things showers can’t, so a great deal of attention had to be paid to choreography if we were to maintain a PG rating.That said, we wanted to stay true to the look and feel of the original ad, so director David Deneen won us over with his plan to construct a full-sized set on a sound stage and capture the majority of the action in-camera, as they did back in 1978.”
James Watson, marketing director of PZ Cussons, said that from start to finish, DDB’s recreation of “Simon, Tahiti” showed great respect for what made the original commercial and indeed the Imperial Leather brand so loved by generations of Australians.
“The team at DDB interpreted our brief in an extremely creative way, as seen by their reality-based approach in an age of computer generated imagery,” says Watson.
“Juggling the obvious staging and choreography logistics and the addition of a live swan – a moody and unpredictable species as some of the crew discovered – the team executed a very challenging shoot with great style,” Watson concluded.
The modern adaptation of the Imperial Leather Foamburst commercial will be reintroduced to the Australian public via online media in conjunction with a competition to win a trip to Tahiti, a week before officially airing on 10 July 2011.
22 Comments
Good grief Charlie Brown.
Does that line sound old fashioned and out of touch? If you were going to go to the questionable trouble of doing this then it needs to be brought up to speed, and make it somehow relevant to anyone who wasn’t watching tv in the 70’s or 80’s.
Way to regurgitate.
Simon…Cannes!
No matter how many “challenges” you were faced with, it’s just plain lazy.
Ugly!
They certainly succeeded in making the ad true to the original, the question is why would you want to?
This brief should have been an ‘old spice’ opportunity.
Turn a pasty old fashioned brand into a relevant, kick-ass money making machine.
However, they decided to do this.
A re-creation of one of their old ads, ‘faithful to the original’.
I want to cry now.
Seriously, why on earth would you do this? Three decades later…and this is the best idea for the brand? Just literally copy the past. Think of all the wonderful, fun scripts that could have been written… inspired by the personality of the original work. Missed opportunity. Look at how Old Spice has been handled.
9.07am you are spot on. This is just plain lazy.
Why all the lather. It just works its butt off in a very tough market.
Well I like it. It’s a cool recreation of one of my childhood’s favorite ever tv ads with a few cheeky little jokes popped in.
Not lazy at all.
Just well done.
Here’s the original if anyone’s interested.
Personally I reckon the original is way cooler. Mostly because the whole scenario works way better as 70’s pastiche, but also because the idea of a family Concorde is waaaaaaaaaay sexier than an airbus or whatever.
If this is designed to appeal to people who grew up with the original spot, I reckon it’s good marketing. If it’s designed to appeal to a new generation, I reckon it’s lazy. Only the client and agency would know the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nK_O1tpEHY
does the kid fart at the end? is that why there is a splash of water?
if so – this ad just became awesome. up until then, and if it’s not a fart – it’s freaking rubbish.
Old Spice has to be the most amazing case study in the world for this category.
If the client decided to ignore it and briefed the agency on this dribble, is their loss.
If the agency decided to ignore it and presented the client with this dribble, they deserve to lose the client.
I don’t see what the hoo-hah is about.
It’s a nice recreation of a classic Australian advertisement. Without knowing the brief, as every Australian outside the agency doesn’t, it seems to me that they’re trying to hit the same market as the original.
20-something advertising hipsters don’t use soap do they?
It’s all body wash and scented oils apparently.
A fair effort for mine.
You might be onto something, 4:13. Perhaps the brand is for people with imperial leathery, wrinkly old skin.
I imagine they were forced to do this. Surely.
How on earth a remake of an ad done 30 years ago can be good for this industry at any level? This is simply embarrasing!
The music and catch phrase are two elements that could have been taken and applied to a new idea for the brand.
(If you wanted to hold on to a little nostalgia.)
Surely, there is life after the plane execution?
This remake actually makes a new product feel dated and old.
As to all the comments regarding Old Spice, do you really believe that kind of work could come out of DDB Melbourne?
I’m a hipster and I use soap.
Sometimes even in the shower.
i think this says more about the client than it does about the agency.
we all know the guys who did this ad are capable of more – perhaps even something as good as old spice.
but we also know that what client says goes.
instead of directing our comments at the creatives, we should be paying out on cussons’ marketing team. it’s people like them who are holding Melbourne back from being a creative hot spot.
Perhaps you are right 11.36am.
Then again, why bother to post this ad on the blog in the first place? Did the client make the agency do that too?
Weak agencies who consistently roll over end up attracting clients who consistently bully them into producing rubbish.
If a shop is happy to take the money and do mediocre work, well, how can this be the clients fault?
And if creatives, who are capable of more, decide to stay and produce wallpaper, well, once again you can’t blame the clients.
Can you?
I concur with anonymous, the kid farts.
I agree with Alan, I like it. Although I think the original was better (it was one of my childhood favourites too) this one is good too. Certainly not lazy. Well done