Brad Pitt perfume faux-pas

I'm going to say something here and I hope you don't scold me for it; I don't like Chanel No.5. I think it is too harsh and smells like a musty old woman. 'Oh but it's Chanel, it's a classic!' That may be so, but it's not to my taste, just like crocs, baked beans, and Gary Barlow.

I feel I had to write something when I saw this new ad for Chanel No.5. Take a look and you'll know why:

Firstly, what the hell? Brad, what are you talking about?

It reminds me of when I visited an art gallery years ago; the exhibition was filled with abstract pieces, there was even a canvas with a simple blue square that had aspiring art critics gasping with awe. I saw a few people gathered round a model of a fire extinguisher, searching desperately for the meaning and to connect emotionally with this piece. Turns out it was an actual fire extinguisher, created only for putting out potential fires in the gallery. This ad is like that fire extinguisher; if you look at it for what it is, it's a bunch of nothing words that people, who clearly don't know what real art is, try to make into something more. Something that only they 'get'. It's just pretentious.

Even Brad commented, 'The beauty of [the perfumes'] success for all these years is both elegantly simple and complex at the same time. That’s what I see being the appeal of this campaign ; it goes beyond the abstract of emotion or beauty to evoke what is timeless, a woman’s spirit.' 

Guys, it's a perfume.

Okay, so I know it's hard to advertise a perfume. There is not much you can do in terms of selling it without smelling it, so I understand why all perfume ads show glamourous women and a beautiful elegance; it's selling the feeling. And it must be harder to advertise one that has been around for nearly a century, so I see why they changed the spokesperson to a man, and tried to make it different. But there is something missing. I think what it is, is that most people who watch it will probably scoff or say 'huh?' There is always a line you can cross when you're trying to be 'arty', I've crossed that line many times to the point where I've evolved an idea so much that it ends up being so far away from my original point, that no connection is made and I have to end up explaining it to people. 

Ads should be 70% explained, with 30% left for the audience to work out. We don't want an in-your-face explanation, and we don't want to leave feeling baffled; instead we like ads with a little intelligence, ads that recognise that we are intelligent too. I watch this and feel like it's a battle of the minds.