My wife loves Crocs’ sandals. She owns more than one pair, talked my mother into buying some and will tell anyone who’ll listen how comfortable they are. So while this spot covers off on Croc’s comfort story, it fails in other ways. Big ways.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Avoided the creep. I’ve never been a fan of talking tubs of butter, chickens selling fried chicken or anything else that can’t happen in reality. But I hate these ‘living’ shoes for an entirely different reason: they’re damn creepy. Sure, the animation is nicely done, but it makes me want to buy a handgun to defend myself. I’m not alone either. The viewer comments on YouTube are not kind. So why didn’t anyone think the Chuckies of footwear might be a bad idea? I definitely would’ve found a different approach—one that wouldn’t frighten little children.

2) Featured the product. Apparently the whole point of this spot was to introduce a new, Keds-like shoe. You couldn’t really tell that from this ad though. That’s because it’s yet another example of a concept getting in the way of the message. People—including myself—have been so distracted by the CGI that no one’s really paying any attention to the new product (including the agency). I mean, if they were in love with the concept of animated shoes, why didn’t they at least feature the right shoe? Namely, the one that isn’t butt ugly and universally derided for its looks.

3) Fixed the tagline. Since the creatives choose to feature a tagline vs. the shoe at the end, I’m going to ding them on it. I can understand why they went with ‘Feel The Love,’ but I don’t think it stands on its own very well. Too many slogans these days serve the ad, not the overall brand. As such, I would’ve directly centered my tagline around the comfort my wife and others rabidly love. With a line like that, no matter what context you see it in, there’s a clear benefit that’s conveyed. Hell, comfort is something Crocs can own in a way few other brands can. And if the shoe fits…

I didn’t watch this year’s Super Bowl. As a result, I didn’t get to see the Betty White/Abe Vigoda Snickers ad everyone was talking about. I didn’t seek it out either cause, well, it was a Snickers ad, which have historically been pretty crappy. Then I saw the Aretha Franklin/Liza Minnelli spot several times and began to think Snickers might have one of the best campaigns running. That, of course, was before I saw this print ad, which feels like it wasn’t just produced by a different team, but by a different agency. Sure, it shares the same payoff as the spots, but that’s about it.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Kept it consistent. The art direction, while not exactly helping matters, really isn’t the biggest problem here. It’s the copy that lacks the verve of the TV. It’s a little too “went with my first idea” to me. After all, rock stars don’t bust hotel rooms because they’re hungry, they bust up hotels rooms cause they’re high. And that’s the biggest miss about this—it’s not terribly thought out. Plus, let’s face it, the hotel-destroying rock star story is one of the biggest clichés out there. What I like about the TV is how it takes a tired old stereotype and puts a fresh spin on it, by actually getting Liza Minnelli to be the diva. This print ad just has a tired old stereotype and doesn’t take it any farther. It is what it is and no more.

2) Gotten visual. Now this is where the art director could’ve started carrying his/her weight. In both of the produced spots, you have such great visuals—Betty White playing football and Aretha Franklin on a road trip. So why wouldn’t you use them? The media buy has these spots in such heavily rotation, you can’t possibly see the print ad without knowing the context. Hell, you could even have standalone concepts with celebrities not shown on TV. After all, people are already in on the joke. That said, I really would’ve focused on exploring this option. Even using the above print ad’s lame conceit, Alice Cooper in full greasepaint would’ve had a lot more impact vs. a 15-word headline set in 48-point type against a brown background. But that’s just my take. And I haven’t had a Snickers bar lately.

I think this one can really be summed up as “good idea, bad execution.” I say this because I’ve come across several iterations of this banner campaign and I think it has potential. Unfortunately though, it’s not going to be realized. Not based on what I’ve seen at least.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Put the concept front and center. There’s a certain whimsy to this campaign that I like. But it’s all setup and no payoff, as you can’t see the visuals very well. Way in the back there’s a carton of yogurt with Van Gogh’s face and, I can only imagine, some witty product name. Without being able to see that though, the ad really doesn’t make sense conceptually. And that’s a shame, because I think this could be a campaign with legs. So the no-brainer here would be to redesign the ad so you actually get the gimmick. To be honest, I’m not sure why the agency didn’t do this themselves.

2) Made it Flash-ier. When I’ve seen these ads, they’ve all been static. And I’m not a big fan of static ads, unless you’re going to keep your message super simple. By designing these ads in Flash, however, there’d suddenly room for everything. You could have the content in the starburst appear big and bold, then nest itself up into a corner. Next, a tight shot of the yogurt could appear before it takes it place in the background. Then, finally, the logo and other elements could animate in. That way, all the key points could be properly emphasized in turn. Plus, with the addition of movement, the ad has a better shot of standing out on the page. 

3) Simplified the design. Like in most creative executions, you really don’t need the starburst. It’s so 1987. I would’ve reallocated its copy to serve as a true headline, giving the logo less competition. And speaking of logos, does this tiny ad need four of them? While I understand this is an ad bought and paid for by government programs, there’s no reason all these logos have to be featured. That’s what the program’s site is for, which brings me to my last point.

4) Driven the point home. Probably the biggest failure of this campaign is the site the ads drive to, which is a total disconnect from the established creative. On my fifth or so site visit, I noticed there sometimes is a module in the lower nav that offers up the 10 promised tips, but it’s not a consistent experience. As such, I would’ve created a landing page that echoed—and expanded upon—the conceptual aspect of the ads. Instead though, you have to keep hitting refresh until the right info comes up. Sometimes it takes three refreshes, other times eight. Let’s face it, if parents wanted their patience tried, they’d go do something with their kids. 

I wasn’t really paying attention when the new LaQuinta ad came on. I was doing other things. So it wasn’t the ad that sucked me in, it was the awfulness that compelled me to look. It was like MST3000 decided to go into the advertising business, but forgot to bring the funny.

It boggles the mind that someone, somewhere convinced a CD to approve this, an Account Director to sell it and a client to sign off on it. This spot—this entire campaign—couldn’t have been the agency’s best idea. It couldn’t have even been the agency’s 12th best idea. With the exception of ads for natural male enhancement and trucking schools, this honestly has to be the worst spot I’ve seen in recent memory. In fact, I can’t even think of a way to improve upon it short of starting over. So…

Here’s what I would do:

1) Fire the copywriter. 30 seconds to play with and all he or she could come up with is 20+ seconds of cornpone humor? This spot ostensibly announces a nationwide redesign of the chain’s rooms, but that barely gets a mention. It’s a shame, too. The rooms actually look much nicer than I would expect, but this direction makes the entire brand look cheap. 

2) Fire the art director. I’m not really sure this spot had an art director. Because no self-respecting art director would use the crappiest footage he or she could find for a national ad. But if someone with a visual eye was tasked to this spot, let the axe drop. Because the only future he or she has is making commercials like these (un-ironically, of course).

3) Fire the CD. He or she obviously can’t evaluate good creative and has no right to be pulling down six figures—which, incidentally, is roughly 600 times what was spent on the production of this spot.

4) Fire the Account Director. Why? Because he or she didn’t say no when it needed to be said. Sometimes, it’s good for the creative people to hear “no.”

5) Fire the client. If the CMO was willing to pin LaQuinta’s newly refurbished properties to a bunch of stale ideas and old B&W footage, he or she won’t be too long for this world. And when a new CMO comes in, the agency is going to have to justify why they did them—and no argument in defense of these ads will save the business. So it’s better just to cut the agency’s losses now and start fresh with a new team and account. Any more spots in this direction would just damage the rep of the agency and the brand.

Of all the traditional fast food places, I probably like Wendy’s the best. But man their marketing is awful. Sometimes, I wish they’d dig up Dave Thomas and reanimate him. Because at least then they’d have some consistency. I’ve never seen a brand go through agencies like Wilt Chamberlain ran through women until Dave Thomas died.

I think current agency, Kaplan Thayer, has had one of the longest runs, which isn’t saying much. But here’s the problem with a lot of their stuff—it’s all jingles and gimmicks. I mean, this entire site is built around a jingle. And a bad one at that. Putting that aside, if you were going to build a site around a jingle, at least make it sing.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Beefed up the viral. Take this page for instance. Shooting for something to go viral isn’t as simple as creating content. You have to create something compelling. And this promo fails for two reasons.

FAIL #1: the tweets make no mention of the promotion. So people who see their friends’ tweets don’t know there’s something in it for them, they just get mildly annoyed at yet another marketing scheme. FAIL #2: when people are given the option to share through Facebook, the actual promo is buried in the copy. The headline of the shared message is the page’s headline, which really isn’t that actionable.

Here’s the thing: when you’re running a promotion, it’s not a crime to be promotional. It’s actually encouraged. Because neither of these shallow attempts at viral offer people enough of a reason to spread the word. They’re not even fun. Again, for something to be spread, it has to be interesting. And I would’ve worked hard to make sure it was, telling people they could win free food in a way they’d want to tell others.

2) Offered people a reason to return. I’ve seen inflatable kiddie pools less shallow than this site. And that leads me to believe that the content gets refreshed fairly frequently. But nothing in the copy invites people to return for new games, promos, etc. Seeing as people can blow through this site in a matter of minutes, I probably would’ve added something to the site’s main copy that called this out.

3) Given full disclosure. Again, on another page, Wendy’s tries to hijack visitors’ Facebook and Twitter accounts, but they don’t provide a reason why you should give their data over. Sure, there’s the promise of finding out how “real you are,” but I probably would’ve conveyed in visuals and copy exactly what you get. Show me something cool and I’ll give you my information. Ask for it without delivering something of value and I’ll keep it to myself.

4) Stopped half-assing it. As if all of the above wasn’t enough, the agency actually botches the single semi-cool thing about the site: it’s lifestream. On one of the pages, there’s a continually updating feed of content related to Wendy’s: tweets, YouTube videos, Flickr pics, etc. But here’s the thing: their filters suck. For instance, instead of bringing in tweets about the Baconator, it pulls in everything that mentions bacon. And there’s a lot of bacon of Twitter. So really what you get is a lot of random thoughts on bacon…and not much else. Cool idea, bad execution. Personally, I would’ve thought this out more before the launch…and checked back afterwards to make any necessary tweaks. Maybe the agency’s guys are just too busy writing jingles to care.

Remember the aughts? Those days when khaki, song and b-list celebrities were synonymous with Gap? Well, in 2010, it’s all about denim. And every ad I’ve seen—print to in-store to online—looks like this, which looks an awful lot like another brand’s ads. I’m not sure why either. Gap’s brand isn’t one that’s broken, so I’m not sure why the creative team tried to “fix” it. In this case, I think it needs to be evolution over revolution.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Solved the identity crisis. When I first saw this ad, I seriously thought it was for American Apparel. Same bold font, same white background, same minimalist vibe. All that’s missing are people and the American Apparel logo. Maybe it’s a calculated move, but to me imitation isn’t the sincerest form of flattery. Especially for a retailer who historically has had such a clearly defined (and whimsical) brand. So I would’ve thought of a more unique way to position Gap and its denim. For some reason, when I think of Gap, I think of color. So I probably would’ve injected some of that, along with Gap’s trademark whimsy. But I wouldn’t have stopped there.

2) Trash the catalog look. In all honestly, the only time you should ever see laydowns is in a catalog. Even worse is cropping the product so you can’t see the detail. Frankly, I shouldn’t have to turn the ad sideways to see the product. And this whole “from $54.50” thing is very Old Navy to me. People looking to spend $50+ on a single item of clothing aren’t especially price conscious. Sure, Gap’s denim is cheaper than designer denim, but that’s it. It’s all very catalog-y and that’s not the way to go for a multi-channel marketing campaign. Speaking of which, seeing as I’ve seen this exact ad in several different mediums, I would’ve come up with different designs and messaging for a true campaign. What’s being shown and said here isn’t strong enough to be repeated over and over and over. 

3) Found the perfect fit. This is where Gap has missed an opportunity: getting a leg up on premium denim brands. Sure, they’re never going to outspend Levi’s, but they can out advertise True Religion, 7 For All Mankind, etc. In addition to adding some Gap fun to the ads, I would really play this up. Then the aforementioned value message would actually make sense, except I’d take the “designer denim for less” direction vs. specific pricing. But what really makes sense is playing off the perfect fit promise that’s tossed off here. If the denim fits perfectly, why not show it on someone? And not just everyone, but people with different body types. This is an opportunity to bring in the B- and C-listers Gap is known for. Surely there’s a Kardashian free somewhere. Then the campaign would actually look like it’s from Gap—and not some Gap wannabe.

I have no love for Moe’s. And even less for this spot. Seriously people, Bo Bice? The man only has 1,062 fans on Facebook. That’s 2.6 Bo Bice fans for every Moe’s location.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) No Bo. This one’s…oh, who am I kidding? This one’s a giant softball, sitting on a tee. It couldn’t be easier. So instead of stating the obvious, I want to say that the only thing in the spot worse than Bo is the lame bodyguard bit. If you’re going to have it, commit to it. Don’t toss it off with “hey guys, relax.” Hell, given the value message at the end, you could mine Bo’s “tour stop” with comedic results. Do it in a way that’s self-parody and Bo might have even been down for it.

2) Embrace the kitsch. Moe’s is the place where menu items are named Joey Bag Of Doughnuts and Art Vandalay. It’s about as far away from Southwestern cuisine as you can get. So why not embrace the food’s fauxness? I’d probably play up the eccentricity of the joint and have some fun. Skipping the easy Western puns Moe’s usually defaults to, I’d go for the 90s zeitgeist.

3) No Bo, The Encore. I don’t really care if Moe’s lets Bo be himself. Instead of squandering a few seconds at the end like this spot did, I would’ve used the time to pay off my concept better or, at the very least, spent a little more time on the value message. When it comes down to it, you can do a lot in four seconds.

I follow Caribou on Twitter and was intrigued when I saw the promise of a brand relaunch coming soon. I’m not a frequent customer, but I do like them—their products, their stores and even how they communicate with their customers. In fact, one of my favorite collateral pieces is something they produced (it was a coffee tasting guide, done in the style of what you’d see for wine). And I have to say, their Life Is Short tagline has always done a pretty good job at capturing the whimsy of their brand. So why am I let down by a re-brand that’s built around it? I think because it’s too obvious.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Dug deeper. While I’m glad the slogan was held over, paying it off with phrases like Thank A Teacher or Plant A Tree seems a little too pat, too easy. If the client really wanted to head in this direction, I would’ve aimed for something less shallow. To me, all the phrases sound like something you’d see on a magnet at a gift shop.

2) Be less like Starbucks. I recently read an article stating that if Caribou wants to be more than a regional player, they need to be more like Starbucks. But I’d argue just the opposite. Largely because I see that being a lose-lose situation. Starbucks has lost a lot of their soul by becoming the McDonald’s of coffee and I’d hate to see Caribou stuck as the Wendy’s of coffee, struggling for an identity in their quest to be #2. Love it or hate, their old rustic branding was something they could own. Take out the coffee beans and this new direction could be for almost any brand (I’m thinking athletic shoes).

Ah, Jimmy Dean. I remember all those commercials from my childhood where Jimmy Dean would sit on a porch swing and dispense his corn pone wisdom. And this ad seems like a bad extension of that.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Written a different headline. Frankly, the current one insults my intelligence. Microwaveable sausage is the key to more family time? Please. “Regular” sausage—at the most—takes like eight minutes to make. And if you’re going to make eggs and slice all that fruit to boot, how much time are you really saving? Yet another example of someone trying to be clever and not thinking beyond that.

2) Connect more with Easter. I’m not sure how many families have a big Easter breakfast (mine didn’t), but I might try to think of a better way to speak to them. Maybe by promoting the idea of having a wholesome family breakfast. I think there’s something to suggesting that the kids have something other than chocolate bunnies for their morning meal. To me, that just seems a little more “real.”

3) Found a different background. Seriously, what’s a breakfast plate doing sitting in a field? The sun I sort of get, but grass?

4) Developed a different tagline. I don’t know how long Shine On has been around, but the only time it’s made sense for me was in the Jimmy Dean spots where that guy in the sun costume was energizing people by feeding them breakfast. Here, it makes no sense. My former boss, Kelly O’Keefe, had a pretty good rule about slogans that I’ve tried to adhere to. His thinking—and I’m paraphrasing here—is that taglines shouldn’t be a payoff to an ad, but be substantive in and of themselves.

5) Driven to something. Seeing as I would’ve probably promoted a better-than-chocolate approach, I most likely would’ve driven to JimmyDean.com for a promotional Easter tie-in—be it brunch recipes or something a little kookier (like how to make your kid’s Easter eggs look like piglets). Anyway, if you’re going to make a big deal out of Easter breakfast, why not go—pardon the pun—whole hog?

I have to admit, I’ve enjoyed the smart copy and sharp visuals of Sprint’s Now Network campaign. It was a marked improvement over the stodgy, black-and-white ads featuring the new-at-the-time CEO. But for whatever reason, he’s back again. Maybe it’s because he’s a colossal egomanic or perhaps it’s due to a failure of imagination at the agency. Either way, it’s a bad move.

Here’s what I would’ve done:

1) Given the CEO the old heave-ho. Unless your name is Lee Iaccoca, you’ve got no business being in your company’s ads. Period. And that’s it, really. The graphic nature of the Now Network campaign—with its inherent stats—would’ve been the perfect vehicle for a straight-up comparison ad. Update: Almost immediately after writing this post, I saw a Sprint banner ad that was handled this exact way. So there you go.