Remember Honda's two-minute TVC "Cog"? Well, make a quick mental note: this ad will not be seen by U.S. audiences. A U.S. Honda executive acknowledged the Wieden & Kennedy, London, spot was "cute as a button," but said it wouldn't work in America, due to lack of product benefits and the high cost of 120 seconds of airtime.
[in case you haven't seen it, here it is: Honda "Cog" via Beam.tv]

"Lack of product benefits" -- the chilly words creative people get every now and then from 'the suits'. But there were signals before. Writing in Ad Age, Randall Rothenberg, chief marketing officer at consultancy Booz Allen Hamilton, slams the [...] new ad from Honda, 'Cogs:

«A front-page Advertising Age headline two weeks ago heralded the birth of a new star. "U.K. Honda ad wins global buzz," it blared. Underscoring the importance of what Ad Age called a "Cannes contender" was this "reefer": "Garfield awards four stars to instant classic."

With all due respect to Honda, ad agency Wieden & Kennedy, the editors of this august publication and its bewhiskered critic, this fanfare encapsulates everything that is wrong with contemporary advertising.»

And

«Consumer marketers should understand they are financing creative directors' auteur fantasies.»

There were some furious replies, like:

«First of all, the cost of a few millions dollars for an ad that may impact the decision of thousand of people to spend $20,000+ is easily amortized. More interesting would be to calculate the impact of not running an ad for your model of car and see what happens when you surrender mind share to all your competitors.

So, assuming that as a car company you are going to continue to advertise on TV, why not make a brilliant ad? I have no data to back up these stats, but as a frequent watcher of TV, it seems to me roughly half of all commecials are for cars, and of those 99% feature long shots of the car zooming along winding roads, closing with a plug about low financing deals. Personally, I haven't owned a car in almost 20 years, but were I to buy a car, I would almost certainly go with either a Honda or a VW. Knowing very little about cars, those two just strike me as reliable, affordable and stylish. Could the fact that they are the only car brands whose ads don't suck have anything to do with that impression?»

So, does this demonstrate that a great viral campaign does not necessarily make a great conventional campaign? Or not? Or just brings into the spotlight old issues we do not want to talk about -- like advertising festivals' relevance (great prizes on flat sales, dead products or 'social' campaigns), clients financing creative directors' fantasies without knowing so (please step forward those CDs and GCDs who never-ever put their hands in the cookie jar) and virtual consumption (Sergio Zyman's The End of Marketing As We Know It: "You don’t want virtual consumption. You don’t want people who love you but never buy you.")

Okeeeey, whatever. Actually this is only one bullet on AdAge's list "10 Ads America Won't See". But here is an online selection of Advertising Age's Book of 10s:

• 10 MOST-WATCHED VIDEOS ON ADAGE.COM -- The Year's No. 1 Spot: P&G's Devo Swiffer
• 10 WHO MADE A MARK ON MARKETING -- From the FCC Chairman and Alex Bogusky to Carson Kressley and Yao Ming
• 10 TOP NONTRADITIONAL AD CAMPAIGNS -- Paid Dog Show Enthusiasts, Phallic Bottles, Cigar Polls and More
• 10 ADS AMERICA WON'T SEE -- Mr. Kipling's Virgin Birth and Other Not-for-the-USA Fare
• 10 HIGHEST-DENSITY BROADBAND MARKETS -- A Roadmap to Rich-Media Advertising Potential
• 10 MOST SUCCESSFUL PRODUCT LAUNCHES -- From iPod to 'Lord of the Rings'
• 10 MOST-READ STORIES ON ADAGE.COM -- The Top Story: Chevy Chase's Strange Turkish Ads
• 10 MOST-DOWNLOADED DOCUMENTS -- Top Download: Family Tree of Ad Organizations