November 28, 2004

the new chanel no. 5 ad

zzzzazzdggg05.jpg
Appa­rently the new Cha­nel No. 5 ad is the most expen­sive com­mer­cial ever made. From The Daily Tele­graph:

Cha­nel argues that it is “a crea­tive first. The film to revo­lu­tio­nise adver­ti­sing.”
At 

25 Responses to “the new chanel no. 5 ad”

  1. boo says:

    I found a down­load at
    http://www.nicolekidmanunited.com/Chanel/ChanelNo5Film/ChanelNo5AdOnChannel9.avi
    You’re right. It’s horri­ble. I won­der if Baz Luhr­mann (direc­tor) and Nichole Kid­man both deci­ded that the fees they were being offe­red were high enough to off­set any damage to their careers.

  2. What a pile of old shite. The whole thing’s a cliche, com­po­sed of more cliches.
    If this is the best that adver­ti­sing can offer these days, they might as well shut up shop now.
    Rus­sell
    The Mobile Weblog
    http://www.mobile-weblog.com

  3. christoph says:

    Which player/codec are you guys using to watch this? I’m on osx with qt+3ivx and vlc ins­ta­lled, but i only get audio, no video…

  4. hugh macleod says:

    Sorry, can’t help you, Chris­toph. I saw the thing on the TV.

  5. Joachim says:

    This film can adver­tise anything, we could have seen “Cof­fee something” or “Jewe­lery something” in the end, and that would have been the same… pretty much everything but per­fume…
    This ad was totally use­less. Too bad for those who wor­ked on it.
    Chris­toph : have you tried with mpla­yer osx? I often get dif­fe­rent results when I use it : http://mplayerosx.sourceforge.net/

  6. cynthia says:

    i agree, the ad is crap and every frame is filled with the overwhel­ming sense of someone trying way too hard. i feel sad for the peo­ple involved…such a huge mis­cal­cu­la­tion. perhaps it will in fact “revo­lu­tio­nize adver­ti­sing”, by killing off these old crusty ideas.

  7. nick lomvardos says:

    does any one know what the music used is called or where it comes from?i met my wife and it was being pla­yed in a record shop.would make a great xmas pre­sent for her and some noo­kie for me.!

  8. campester says:

    reminds me of those fuc­king bom­bay sapphire ads that are alle­gedly “art”. or, i sup­pose, the whole abso­lut cam­paign, which while as resoun­dingly suc­cess­ful as any bullshit ad cam­paign can pos­sibly be, is still neverthe­less a bullshit ad cam­paign. i’m almost temp­ted by such things to exhume andy warhol’s corpse so i can hit him on the head with a sho­vel.
    i liked that old aftershave com­mer­cial where the guy slaps him­self in the face. it’s just kind of a nice image. and that’s that cheap shit you can buy in the drug store. do not unde­res­ti­mate the power of sme­lling like your dad, or your grand­dad.
    there will always be a seg­ment of the mar­ket that does not want to be insul­ted, howe­ver small. maybe i’m an idiot, but i want that mar­ket.
    you may say that i’m a dre-e-eamer-r-r.….

  9. a critic says:

    Well well, I stum­bled onto this site while loo­king for a Cha­nel retai­ler, and good­ness me, how very sad this is. I’m not usually one to par­ti­ci­pate in these ‘chat’ absur­di­ties, but oh well …
    To ‘Nick Lomvardos’ — The piece of music is Debussy’s Clair De Lune
    To the end­less pile of cri­tics — please, stop cri­ti­ci­sing the piece of work because you don’t unders­tand it, or have some deep hatred towards the more for­tu­nate world of luxury. Either admire it, or ignore it, do not make absurd com­pa­ri­sons bet­ween the world of luxury and the world that is exem­pli­fied by fra­grance you buy from the drug store.

  10. hugh macleod says:

    “A Cri­tic”, I pos­ted my reply here:
    http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/001153.html
    “Well, Anony­mous, that explains why Cha­nel got into the soap busi­ness, so peo­ple like you can reach down and grab it. That’s what they want, of course. They want you to buy into their value sys­tem, which they firehose down from on high.
    ‘The more for­tu­nate world of luxury’? C’mon, Anon, it’s a bottle of per­fume, not a fric­kin’ 50-foot yacht.”

  11. Mary says:

    I LOVE the commercial…it took my breath away! The whole thought of it is so roman­tic!! The atmosphere, the love, the acting it was simply inc­re­di­ble! Nicole Kid­man is beau­ti­ful! It was like no other com­mer­cial i have ever seen!! Good Job Chanel!!!!!

  12. sherry says:

    To all you peo­ple that are down pla­ying this commercial…chanel is get­ting the last laugh!! becuase not only are you arguing and spen­ding your time tal­king about it your expo­sing what you “think is dumb”(the perfume)…so when you think you are doing beni­fit and put­ting this mas­ter­piece down you are actually hel­ping them…so who is get­ting the last laugh…!!

  13. Alpha says:

    “blah blah Cha­nel blah blah blah Cha­nel blah.”
    that kind of buzz only helps Cha­nel among peo­ple who don’t form opi­nions of their own. in my opi­nion, the mar­ket is chan­ging. peo­ple are doing their own thin­king more.

  14. hugh macleod says:

    Well, Sherry and Mary, since you both are wri­ting from the same IP num­ber, your opi­nions carry less weight than those lea­ving com­ments for HONEST rea­sons.
    I sus­pect you’re some PR flack in the pay of Cha­nel.
    Wha­te­ver. It doesn’t mat­ter to me one way or the other. I hap­pen to not think much of the com­mer­cial, but maybe there are plenty folks who do.

  15. Christopher says:

    I saw the ad for the first time at the movies a cou­ple of weeks ago. It’s full of cliches, it’s melo­dra­ma­tic, it’s com­pu­ter gene­ra­ted, etc, etc. And I frik­kin loved it. LOVED IT! My friend and I tur­ned to each other when it ended and could hardly say anything.
    Oh get over it. It’s just a fra­grance com­mer­cial, not a neo nazi mani­festo. I’m sure it will do what it was sup­po­sed to do — shift pro­duct. And I’m sure the shif­ting of the pro­duct will help recoup the out­lay. It was never gonna be, or was even sup­po­sed to be Citi­zen Kane. In the mean­time I’ll keep watching the down­load cause the dres­ses are real pretty, Nicole is gor­geous, the shots are sump­tuous and Rodrigo San­toro is one tall drink of water. And I love the music.
    And as for the cost? I work in adver­ti­sing and I can tell you now that Cha­nel will never have relea­sed info on anyo­nes fees or the cost of the ad. The figure will have been inven­ted by some hack at the New York Post.

  16. lara says:

    oh well… you all talk and talk and talk… so you all have seen it! That

  17. fouroboros says:

    Wha? Were’s me com­ment from Dec 11th? Was it something I said, Hugh?

  18. wildsoda says:

    “No one can steal our dream…no one!”
    She’s ready for her close-up now, Mr. DeMille.

  19. Michelle says:

    I loved it! Cha­nel is genious! They have a tar­get audience and it doen’s inc­lude the dream­less. Bravo.

  20. Amber-Jo says:

    I love the film Mou­lin Rouge i have it on dvd and video this how Nicole Kid­man became my favo­rite actress, The Chan­nel advert i saw the other night i found it Bri­liant she looks beau­ti­ful in it! Its soooo Roman­tic i have too down­load!
    Well done Nicole and Channel!

  21. Trish says:

    I also love Mou­lin Rouge and must admit I like the ad. My ques­tion is who is the guy?

  22. ansh says:

    Well, Well, It is funny that all u peo­ple who are saying this advert/film is crap. It is a very one of the most beau­ti­ful advert i have ever seen. I think the peo­ple who dont like it dont have any sense of art. Try to think of something like this u r self and then u should know how dif­fi­cult it is to make something like this.

  23. harry says:

    yah, but i hear cha­nel had a ban­ner year. i unders­tand that quite a few peo­ple like it — espe­cially their loyal cus­to­mer base. and so, what have you peo­ple made lately? gri­lled cheese? stop being such whi­ney bitches — it hurts my ears.

  24. harry says:

    he’s a bra­zi­lian actor i hear.

  25. hugh macleod says:

    Exactly where did you hear they had “a ban­ner year”, Harry?
    From the PR firm who pays your salary, perhaps? ;-)