http://www.businessoffashion.com/2008/05/cartier-and-sergio-rossi-the-power-of-internet-video.html The Business of Fashion is an essential daily resource for fashion creatives, business professionals and entrepreneurs in more than 200 countries around the world. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:49:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.businessoffashion.com/2008/05/cartier-and-sergio-rossi-the-power-of-internet-video.html#comment-244 Anjli Mon, 05 May 2008 06:20:04 +0000 http://www.businessoffashion.net/2008/05/cartier-and-sergio-rossi-the-power-of-internet-video.html#comment-244 This post reminded me of the Chanel No. 5 "film", starring Nicole Kidman and directed by Baz Luhrmann. I put "film" in quotation marks because, apparently, this is what Luhrmann calls it (source: www.bazthegreatsite.com). I would be more inclined to call it a "commercial", as I'm sure most people would. ; ) I guess this begs the question, where do you draw the line between a commercial and a film? Granted, the film was 3 minutes long, longer than most TV commercials, and, as I found out from the website mentioned previously, there is a five-part documentary on the making of the film. Also, perhaps a 3 minute commercial qualifies as a short film. Again, it helps that two Hollywood heavyweights were involved in the effort. I love Chanel perfumes, Coco Mademoiselle being one of my favourites, but I think the whole idea of having a "film" commercial, and a making of the "film" commercial reeks of pretension, and for this very reason, the whole drawn out ado could have the exact opposite effect on viewers: after seeing the commercial, some people might be inclined to distance themselves from the brand rather than flock to it. As BoF said, it comes down to "showing a video to someone who wants to see it, versus interrupting someone with a commercial when they want to be watching something else" -- a 3 minute commercial, at that! This post reminded me of the Chanel No. 5 “film”, starring Nicole Kidman and directed by Baz Luhrmann. I put “film” in quotation marks because, apparently, this is what Luhrmann calls it (source: http://www.bazthegreatsite.com). I would be more inclined to call it a “commercial”, as I’m sure most people would. ; ) I guess this begs the question, where do you draw the line between a commercial and a film? Granted, the film was 3 minutes long, longer than most TV commercials, and, as I found out from the website mentioned previously, there is a five-part documentary on the making of the film. Also, perhaps a 3 minute commercial qualifies as a short film. Again, it helps that two Hollywood heavyweights were involved in the effort. I love Chanel perfumes, Coco Mademoiselle being one of my favourites, but I think the whole idea of having a “film” commercial, and a making of the “film” commercial reeks of pretension, and for this very reason, the whole drawn out ado could have the exact opposite effect on viewers: after seeing the commercial, some people might be inclined to distance themselves from the brand rather than flock to it. As BoF said, it comes down to “showing a video to someone who wants to see it, versus interrupting someone with a commercial when they want to be watching something else” — a 3 minute commercial, at that!

]]>