Does it matter if a commercial is made using CGI (computer generated imagery) or not? The above commercial, for Orange, is all “real.” No CGI. More from AdLand:“If there was ever a need for a “making of the commercial” behind the scenes footage, it is for that Orange – Belonging advert. Some people are rubbing their eyes thinking it’s all digital trickery. It is not.”
You can see three clips for how they made the commercial here. Holes, running, and the camera’s blind spot. And a lot of choreography.
Telling authentic stories is crucial for brands to connect with people. So when they tell the story without “trickery,” is the story more authentic? The Honda Cog commercial, or those Sony Bravia commercials with the bouncing balls or the apartment building covered in exploding paint… they’re all done without CGI. And they’re all visually interesting and engaging (though I don’t think the paint one is as good as the bouncing balls… maybe the music, or the anticipation Sony created for the paint one after the balls…). Agencies are realizing that the brands they represent gain additional backstory by making these commercials “authentically” instead of digitally. Which reflects on the brand. Which strengthens the relationship between brands and people. Which conveys honesty. And people like that in brands. So even though the computer might make it easier to create commercials like these, I imagine we’ll be seeing plenty more commercials done without them. After all, it isn’t the technology, it’s the idea and story. And the more authentic the story, the more powerful it is.
Link from Brand New.