|
Forums >
General Industry >
Estee Lauder's New Campaign
What does everyone think of this image of Gwyneth?  (if the image doesn't show up, it's located here): http://a248.e.akamai.net/www.esteelaude … /intro.jpg Nov 30 05 06:30 am Link wow..thats all kinds of awful.... Nov 30 05 07:03 am Link too blah for me..simple Nov 30 05 07:06 am Link This one is clearly targeting an older demographic, and if you ask me, poorly. A few weeks ago somebody posted a "huh??" thread about a couple of blurred pictures in an Yves St Laurent campaign when I actually disagreed and thought that they were savvy. This on the other hand is just weak. Targeting the older demographic they chose to be safe and mainstream. Ok, that's not a problem, that's a carefully thought-out decision. They addressed it by doing... nothing. It's cheap, even. Fire the art director and don't hire that photographer to shoot that sort of concept anymore. Nov 30 05 07:09 am Link Something about her face looks distorted and widened- not how she looks in other photos. Nov 30 05 07:10 am Link Dreams To Keep wrote: I'd go so far as to say that make-up and styling, expression and what looks to be excessive retouching (hard to tell with all the jpeg compression) actually makes her look old and kinda cheap. Wal-Mart as opposed to Neiman Marcus. Nov 30 05 07:16 am Link rather a manly side of Gwynnie i have to say. Nov 30 05 07:17 am Link A photographer got paid to shoot this? I'd fire the art director for wanting a shot like this. Can't blame the photographer for giving the clients what they want no matter what you think of it. Yea, it's safe and mainstream and Estee Lauder products are geared to older women but having what is basically a portrait seems weak from an advertising standpoint. It is, IMO, not a very good portrait at that - not flattering. Also, why Gwyneth? If your product is geared toward older women, wouldn't i make sense to use an older woman in your ad? Of course, Estee Lauder may be trying to move into the younger market (30+? 25+?) hence the reason for the Gwyneth photo. However, the photo still sucks no matter what the reasoning is. Nov 30 05 07:58 am Link I think the photo is a great shot lighthing and composition wise. However, it is NOT a good shot of Gwyneth. Her face looks all kinds of distorted and makes her look older than she actually looks in real life. Estee may be looking to promote their line to a more middle aged crowd, 30-40 now. But they probably, really could have gotten a better photo of Gwyneth. Nov 30 05 08:12 am Link i expected a little bit more from estee lauder Nov 30 05 08:14 am Link I saw the posters/advertisements in the mall at the cosmetic counter yesterday and I must say it appalled me. I had to do a double-take to make sure it really was Gwyneth. IMO, Gwyneth is a beautiful woman, but this photo really made me turn up my nose. I wonder what she thinks of it herself?? It's not flattering at all.....wanted to see what my fellow MM'ers thought of it too. Thanks for your opinions, everyone!!!! Nov 30 05 08:20 am Link i thought estee luderwas targeting the drag queen market. Nov 30 05 08:36 am Link As has been stated by others....I'm not sure you can fault the photographer on this one.....but the art director should be clearing out his desk. On the other hand, someone higher up must have bought the AD's pitch. Bottom line: weak, unflattering shot/ad for a company that certainly knows better. (But this isn't the first time THAT has happened) R Nov 30 05 08:53 am Link The image in whole is good, not great but good. It appears they are emphasizing that anybody can wear their product by giving her a more normal look, rather than the high end make-up/styling look we're used to seeing her with. Her eyes look a little whackoâ¦.. like someone who named her baby after a tree fruit  Nov 30 05 09:13 am Link Never noticed her eyes were so far apart. Like a lizard! Nov 30 05 09:13 am Link 99 out of 100 people don't care what the picture looks like. 99 out of 100 will glance and immediately associate Gwyneth with Estee. Mission accomplished. Job done. What is lost in all these reviews is Gwyneth, as the model, is not important. What is important is Gwyneth as the smiling happy successful person alongside of Estee is all that matters for planting a seed in the minds of passing glances as being content through product use. The biggest difference between models working the campaign level and aspirants on the Internet is this: Working models first and foremost realize it isn't about just them. Nov 30 05 09:23 am Link area291 wrote: I'll repeat. It's crap. Estee Lauder now looks cheap. Compare to the simple conservative stuff Estee ran of Liz Hurley a few years ago. Much classier. Higher end. More flattering (for beauty products marketed to middle-aged women, it just doesn't make sense to shoot a 33 year old model and make her look 45 than it does to shoot a woman in her 40s that looks youthful and classy). It wasn't super cool but Estee Lauder doesn't need to be super cool, it effectively reached it's demographic with a positive statement. This on the other hand looks cheap and it looks lazy. And this for a brand that sells at the make-up counter rather than the drugstore. (Big whoops!) Regional advertising writ large with a much more expensive celeb instead of a local agency model. Bloody awful art direction. Nov 30 05 10:22 am Link first mistake....It's a spring photo in a winter ad. Nobody wears pink in the dead of winter...and those pink flowers look cheap and who uses pink flowers in the dead of winter? Not enough light in the eyes, and whats with the splash of light on the nose? not working in a beauty shot. It sucks. Nov 30 05 11:07 am Link I think they are trying to tap into a newish market, My mom really likes this add and I have to say i love their products.  Nov 30 05 12:20 pm Link If I were Gwyneth, I'd be pissed. She looks like her face is melting off her skull. Nov 30 05 12:52 pm Link why are her eyes so small? Nov 30 05 12:54 pm Link Gwenyth is my all time favorite actress.. Congrats to her but that picture is less than flattering..she can look much better Nov 30 05 03:07 pm Link yep, this ad doesn't look any better in print, i saw it in InStyle or W, can't recall right now which one... but, it IS Gwyneth; we recognized her; and now, we're discussing the ad, so it worked, i guess. *shrug* Nov 30 05 05:37 pm Link THAT IS ONE CRAP CACA DOO DOO IMAGE EWWWWW YUCK ! POOR POOR Gwenyth, I WOULD BE PISSED IF I HAD A SHOOT AND I TURNED OUT LOOKING THAT BAD ! Nov 30 05 06:45 pm Link And if this is a holiday add why is she holding fresh flowers? are they trying to make us think of spring or are they trying to get 2 adds out of one shot? Nov 30 05 08:05 pm Link mmmmmm..... (can't find words) yea, it's not a very flattering photo of gwineth but at the same time I've seen worse of her : P Nov 30 05 08:26 pm Link Hmmmm...just wondering...if it wasn't Gwyneth...but just another model here asking for comments...would the response be the same (for the photo, not the ad) Nov 30 05 08:35 pm Link Im'age NY (INY) wrote: Probably not, too much candy coating goes on here. Nov 30 05 08:38 pm Link She just looks strange, could also be an awkward retouch. Her teeth look like Chicklets. Nov 30 05 10:51 pm Link It's low key and accessible. To me it feels genuine. If they're going after a general demographic then it's perfectly fine. Dec 01 05 12:25 am Link That's a *really* bad photo - the lighting is really poor and it makes her look terrible. And I agree, it does look like her face is melting off. Methinks the photographer didn't bother controlling the harsh light that's hitting her, and the art director... well... shouldn't be an art director. Its really amazing (and sad) what is accepted as "good photography" these days. And to use it to try to sell a "beauty' product is just stupid. I wouldn't buy something that would make me look like that (well, assuming I was a woman or I wanted to look like Gwynth). Its a bad portrait and its bad commercial work. "Nuf said. Bye. -P- Dec 01 05 02:48 am Link Actually, having looked at it again I'm wondering if this was a reasonable portrait that was ruined in post production. It looks like they hit it with far more Photoshop than anyone should be allowed to use. It looks like this one has gone far beyond the usuall "plastic people" post production that's so common in mags these days. Er... yeah. I would like to see the original photo just to see what it looked like before post production. -P- Dec 01 05 02:50 am Link I did a publicity shoot with Elizabeth Hurley for breast cancer awareness month back in the middle of Oct.(for Estee Lauder) and not a word was spoken about Ms.Paltrow taking over as the new face of Estee Lauder,(a big mistake in my opinion) She looks terrible in the new ads,and just as bad in the new commercials if you have had the misfortune to see them yet. Elizabeth Hurley is no doubt laughing her ass off. Dec 01 05 08:38 pm Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: 100% agree. The intended end result of associating Gwyneth with Estee Lauder is irrelevant to the fact that this is still, from an aesthetic standpoint, utter crap. Dec 01 05 09:10 pm Link Im'age NY (INY) wrote: Good question! IMHO, were it anything else but a celebrity-associative ad (i.e. leveraging Gwyneth's unmistakeable face to enhance the Estee Lauder name), it would be the most boring ad on earth, unless the photo was of some mind-bogglingly gorgeous unknown (and even then it runs the risk of being utterly forgotten). Dec 01 05 09:21 pm Link Gwenyth...great actress. Ad Campaign for Estee Lauder...not so much. I personally, have never thought of her as a gorgeous gal, but I must admit that I have definitely seen her look a little better. Not a good look at all, but as stated earlier; it's not the photogs fault and it isn't hers either. I doubt that Estee Lauder would've chose this image if it wasn't weren't they were going for... ~Marcia Dionne~ Dec 01 05 09:28 pm Link ya know it is amazing everyone is talking s@%& about this image but the photographer who took it probaly made $250,000 on it , and it is what it is , so if this was your image the only thing that matters is if the clients check clears , Estee Lauder was happy with it , so it must work to some degree. Dec 01 05 10:11 pm Link 99 out of 100 people don't care what the picture looks like. 99 out of 100 will glance and immediately associate Gwyneth with Estee. Mission accomplished. Job done. you hit the nail on the head. all these "gwyneth looks ugly" and "the art direction sux" folks are forgetting two important things. Dec 01 05 10:33 pm Link "Elizabeth Hurley is no doubt laughing her ass off." i would love to pick up that piece of ass. Dec 01 05 10:49 pm Link aguynamededdy wrote: which is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, exactly why the ad sucks. 30 - 50 year old women will want to look like Gwyneth looks in her movies, not the way Gywneth looks in this ad. They'll look at this picture and think "if Estee Lauder products make Gwyneth Paltrow look like she just had a bad facelift, I don't want to come near the stuff..." aguynamededdy wrote: Huh? If that were true, 80% of the lame-ass ads out there would never be seen. Dec 02 05 01:05 am Link |
