The statement in this ad is that downloading hurts the very artists we love. The execution of it is great because I can’t imagine designing and not being paid for it. It’s interesting what was done with the pointers – I think it might take some people a little bit of processing to get it though.

Voodoo: 50 Cent

My general conclusion on this ad is that it’s a bad idea and here’s why. When you’re going to use these artists to back-up the statement being made, it’s a poor point in this debate. 50 Cent for example whose chain can probably feed a village in Africa doesn’t really backup the statement that downloading his music has an adverse effect on these artists, does it?

Voodoo: Kiss

Voodoo: Lady Gaga

Gene Simmons lives in a house probably the size of a village in Africa and Lady Gaga has enough cash to create some of the most elaborate fashion pieces so can you seriously use these artists in the ad to reinforce this statement? It’s like saying one of those organizations that helps children in Africa showing in their ad a kid with a Nike sneakers asking us for money to help those children. That’s stupid right? Well I think this ad is the equivalent. It’s plain stupid.

I’m not saying we should watch at what they buy but for the sake of the ad, you’ve got to back up the statement with a solid foundation, not something people can find a response to. There must be a better way to communicate this fact. That’s my comment. What’s yours?

Critique Agent: "dmadray"  -  http://twitter.com/depthskins

Damian Madray is the founder & creative director of Depthskins Studio & DesignersCouch, his responsibilities are in the areas of branding, web design and project management. Damian’s keen eye is always absorbing design elements around him which lead to the creation of DCQ. More posts by this author.