Hmmmmmm. Interesting....
> ----------
> From: Paul Catmur
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:16 PM
> To: 'John Drinnan'; Paul Catmur
> c.c.: undisclosed recipients
> Subject: RE: Shortened Version
>
> Dear John,
> You seem to have trouble reading, which as a journalist I'd always thought was a prerequisite.
> At no point did I say the campaign 'might not have worked but the controversy made me strangely happy'.
> If someone goes to the trouble of writing a reply (as you requested) I think you could go to the trouble of printing it correctly.
> Paul
posted by CB at 2/24/2006 01:33:00 pm
6 Comments:
campaign?
2:33 pm NZDT
Please define campaign for all of us, 2.33pm. In the ambient.new media/not a couple of TVS context.
1:52 am NZDT
Woops, meant to say TVCs. Too many Tequillas.
1:53 am NZDT
Well 3 plane stunts would be a campaign. Under Cannes rule 23b, 2 Plane stunts and a helicopter stunt that wasn't a stunt must fall into the mixed media category. I do however know how Paul feels. I too was once misquoted in the media. The woman at Trade and Exchange put $12k instead of $22k for my WRX. I fielded 100's of calls for weeks. Probably the most effective ad I've ever run.
5:03 am NZDT
I think the point was John Drinnan should not be trusted - he is the world's worst journalist and would be better suited hacking away on a tabloid.
If your reputation in advertising means anything to you I suggest you don't return his calls. He isn't interested in what you have to say - only what he wants to say...
You've been warned.
2:22 pm NZDT
eatshit is right - Drinnan is dangerous. If we all ignore him and he'll go away.
10:58 am NZDT
Post a Comment
<< Home