Next Cockroach You See, Shake the Raid and Think Zoo York


Ugh. Watch some street hoods spray paint Zoo York's logo on roaches, then shower them onto people in the Manhattan business district.

And here, in a concept slightly more benign, one roach calls another a "no-good cocksucking piece of shit asshole douche."

Nice one. Gotta use it some time, possibly on one of the bustier interns. And in other news, what the fucking-fuck-FUCK?

The spots were produced by Rockhard Films for agency davidandgoliath, which wanted to imbue Zoo York with a sense of the "unbreakable." I might not have thought "unbreakable," but I did think "unappealing," "uncute" and "get off my internets!!!!" I can't remember the last time I hated an idea this much. Wait, actually yes I can.

by Angela Natividad    Apr- 3-08   Click to Comment   
Topic: Brands, Campaigns, Commercials, Television, Video, Worst   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



You are without doubt the most annoying voice in advertising news. Maybe when you mature out of entry level writing or finish your marketing 101 course you�ll the grasp the notion of demographics beyond your little self contained world.

I wish I could revert to pre-2006 when I actually enjoyed reading adrants.

Posted by: darrel on April 4, 2008 12:48 AM


And while we're here, why don't you explain what these ads have to do with proper demographic targeting.

Because the way I see it, all they do is remind white-collar adults that borough kids get kicks by being naughty and profane. The ads also tell those same kids it's okay to harbor -- and act on -- nasty feelings about the faceless suits on Wall Street.

Having come from a piece-of-shit high school where people behaved like this on the daily, and few got to come out with a happy future, I don't fucking appreciate it, Darrel. It's hard to be ambitious in that environment, and it's hard to want things beyond chaos.

I don't think anybody in that situation needs one more rich guy to sanction the glorified anti-struggle.

Posted by: Angela on April 4, 2008 12:51 AM

“all they do is remind white-collar adults that borough kids get kicks by being naughty and profane.” – That’s exactly the point, and exactly why I like this campaign. Breaking News: they’re not talking to white-collar adults. Fortunately, they do sync well with 16 year old urban boys who are in the height of the rebellious, mischievous and immature years of their lives.

My point about demographics was that, believe it or not, all ads are not created just for you to blog about. Do agencies need to send you the brief so you’ll understand? It seems like you’re incapable of considering the brand and its’ audience before you regurgitate your narrow opinions.

I’m not speaking of just this campaign. Since you’ve joined in 06 I find myself skipping over your garbage gabber. I wish adrants had a “steve –only” filter.

Posted by: darrel on April 4, 2008 10:50 AM

This campaign works if their target really is immature 16-year-old boys, with a limited amount of money to to spend on clothes.

It sucks if they are trying to appeal to people who want to be hip and actually have money to spend on their products.

Posted by: Michael on April 4, 2008 2:15 PM

A "Steve-only" filter - geez, most days I wish there was a "No Steve, please" filter as I know I'll have to scan, at a minimum, one item that's about some bimbo's big tits and ass. Once in awhile is fine, But. Every. Single. Day? Sigh...

Posted by: Jenniferwriter on April 4, 2008 6:12 PM

Maybe they should throw feces on "the man" next time. Or maybe vomit on people. That would appeal to immature ass holes too. Fair game? Where do you draw the line? Is an ad a good idea / successful simply because it attracts the pocketbooks of the target audience? Is there no responsibility on the part of the advertisers to the general culture?

Posted by: Greg Formager on April 7, 2008 10:54 PM