Medibank launches new ‘Everything in between’ families campaign via Whybin\TBWA Melbourne
Medibank and Whybin\TBWA Group Melbourne has launched a new campaign aimed at families and encouraging them to reevaluate their existing health cover.
This is the first campaign to be released since Medibank appointed Whybin \TBWA Group Melbourne in June as their new creative agency. The new campaign is the first to carry the new overarching brand and creative idea of “Everything in between”.
In recent years Medibank has undergone a significant transformation, expanding the role it plays in their customer’s health. From a health insurer to a health partner. The new campaign helps to establish Medibank as a brand that can make a real difference to their member’s health so they can stay at their best throughout life. From birth to retirement. From simple diet tips to life saving surgery. From, to and everything in between.
The first campaign to use Medibank’s new overarching brand idea and communication style will be the September campaign. Aimed at families this September Switching campaign encourages families to compare their current cover with Medibank and tapping into families desire to protect their loved ones as well as communicating Medibank’s flexible cover options.
Chris Carroll, GM of Marketing, commented, “This new campaign is more than just an advertising idea, it marks a new phase in Medibank’s journey toward being a health partner. The campaign developed by Whybin\TBWA sees the full integration of the brand across all of our communications, enabling the Medibank brand to speak with one voice to all of our members’ and people who are making the decision to purchase health insurance.”
Mark Watkin, MD of Whybin\TBWA Group Melbourne also added,” We’re happy to see this first phase of the activity for Medibank, it creates a new platform across all areas of their business. We look forward to next iterations.”
The integrated campaign includes TV, print, radio and digital.
Client – Medibank
Chris Carroll – GM Marketing
Katrina Barbaro – Marketing Manager Brand & Advertising
Tina Conder – Advertising & Media Manager
Agency – Whybin\TBWA
Paul Reardon – Executive Creative Director
Michael Syme and Peter Kirwin – Creative Directors
Nat Taylor – Producer
Eyvonne Carfora- Producer
Dave Keating – Online Producer
Katie Firth – Group Account Director
Cassie Cobain – Account Director
James Needham – Strategic Planner
Production
Production Company – Prodigy Films
Matt Palmer – Director
Adrian Shapiro – Producer
Geoffrey Simpson – DoP
34 Comments
Simple, to the point and nicely done.
i feel sick
I can understand why Mr Watkin is looking forward to the next iterations….woeful!
Vanilla.
Brilliant!
Brilliant. Love it. You’re so right, it’s just so much more than an ad. And even if it is was an ad, which it clearly isn’t, I like the use of supers all the way through to explain what’s going on.
Even if people notice this (which they won’t), and even if they could read those tiny little supers (which they won’t) they still won’t have any clue what it’s all about. Brave call putting this on the Blog. Genuine brochureware.
Nappa and Watto are so hot right now.
Now it’s clear why they were awarded the business.
Really fresh, inspired thinking.
Yuk!
Looks like someone ideas got butchered.
Patts must be glad they lost the account
It creates a platform…
…to jump from.
Not memorable. Very Vanilla.
A triumph of marketing genius!!!
God bless those wonderful marketing people for making advertising so good.
Anyone involved in this should start thinking about another job.
This pile of marketing dribble fails on every communication level.
As a piece of retail this is not bad… I’d guess Medibank do a lot of this type of work
Clearly they changed agencies for the right reasons, someone who would bank the cash and spit out any old crap for them.
If you didn’t know by now what Wybins stands for, this work spells it out loud and clear.
Why does it seem like no Art Director was dragged anywhere near this?
Why oh why are you trying to co-ordinate the colour of each super to different objects in different vignettes, creating unforgivable garishness?
Why?
Why is the animation style of the supers taken from an 80s infomercial? Why?
Why, Mr Client, have you signed off on a campaign that is so strategically vacuous that no-one will be able to remember a single thing about it, other than a vague haze of standard bank / insurance ad cliches seen in a thousand other ads?
Why oh why am I milking this whole “why” copy platform to death?
Why?
Soft.
I thought there was a hot new CD there?
I feel worse now, so much worse now.
Look, Medibank wants wallpaper. Always has, probably always will. The one time they did something different at their last agency, it went very pear-shaped for them, and they’re probably scared shitless again and will be for years. I think most of us know the story of that one.
Every agency in the world does work like this. Yours does. And I’ll bet you, personally, do too.
And it’s this kind of work that pays for the MJ Bale work that whybins did that won them multiple lions this year.
Their only ‘sin’ is that it appears on the CB blog. But a client like medibank expects you to PR it, so whaddaya do?
I don’t work at tbwa, but why the fuck slate them for doing something just about every agency in the world does? Maybe KesselsKramer doesn’t, but you don’t survive in this market without having to make work like this.
You know what? I’ll bet Reardon knows this is wallpaper, everyone at Whybins knows this is wallpaper, you know this is wallpaper, I know this is wallpaper. If you have to have a crack at people, save your venom for an agency that fucks up a great opportunity.
This never was a chance to do good. Just move on.
It’s hard doing cannes winning work on stuff when it’s a genuine client and not just made up for award entries.
. . . apart from the bit where you say you don’t work for tbwa.
Different Whybin offices you’re talking about there.
And the other one won awards on NRMA I think too this year. Which is a big grown up client in my book. Probably pays the bills too.
“It’s hard doing cannes winning work on stuff when it’s a genuine client and not just made up for award entries.” Carlton better return their Lions then, I think the Big Ad, Slo-Mo etc. were pulled as a favour from a film director and ran once at midnight?
“Ah, but that’s a good client, Medibank isn’t, I’d like to see anyone try, blah blah blah blah blah…” Hmmm. There’s wallpaper that’s put up right, then there’s wallpaper that’s a sloppy mess.
At least put it up right.
This ad deserves the condemnation it’s received, but not for most of the reasons given. The problems are much more fundamental than graphics, art direction or film-making.
The real shortcoming of this campaign is that it has no apparent marketing strategy, no memorable advertising device, no meaningful promise or slogan. It does not take a position. It just says ‘Medibank exists’, and nothing more. That’s not good enough.
It didn’t have to be a Cannes contender, just a good piece of advertising. But this is elevator music.
Whatever the difficulties may have been behind the scenes, and surely better work was presented, it’s shameful that such senior people with decades of experience allowed this to leave the building, let alone get to air. Hot on the heels of some recent ANZ work which exhibits similar blandness, it smacks of an agency that’s become way too comfortable.
At Patts we managed to make Medibank into a client that did beautiful Cannes standard work. And we were super proud of the work.
It’s not easy to drag some clients up the hill, but Coulson has a weird obsession about all our biggest / hardest clients having to represent at Cannes. Cadbury, Schweppes, Defence Force, etc.
All Gold Lion winners s for very real work.
Now that I see this stuff, I know why we don’t have Medibank anymore.
They just didn’t want an agency that busts it nuts to do great work for them. But I think it’s the agencies job to push through to great work anyway.
I’d love to see Whybin make Cannes quality work on Medibank. I think they can.
We did, and it was really hard, but it’s what we are in business for.
@September 5, 2012 6:21 PM
“At Patts we managed to make Medibank into a client that did beautiful Cannes standard work……..They just didn’t want an agency that busts it nuts to do great work for them. ”
Let’s call a spade a spade here. Doing Cannes-quality work was for yourselves, not the client. The client wouldn’t give a flying fuck about your book – just getting an ad that they paid for. Going above and beyond to make it Cannes-worthy is just an ego stroke in the hopes of being able to put it on your CV.
Your assumption, Mr / Miss / Ms. Circus, is that work that wins in Cannes can only benefit either the ego or CV of its makers. That’s not an assumption borne out by fact, sadly. (Please, for god’s sake (and your own credibility’s sake), don’t say: “Well, you name one piece of work that won in Cannes and did any good for a client”. Please.)
Neither is the equally false assumption that hackneyed dross is “hard-working” and thus helpful to the client. The client should give a fuck (airborne or not) about issues like strategy and memorability, both of which are conspicuously absent in this particular Medibank ad.
We as creatives don’t strive to win at Cannes.
That is a gamble.
All we simply do is try to do the very best we can on every single brief.
We try to find things that stick. That people remember. That shifts people to grab their wallet and think differently about brands.
Cannes is just a shiny bit of metal that sometimes you get for doing the right thing.
If you think of the biggest award winning pieces of work from Australia over the last ten years at Cannes, they have also equally shifted brands and moved products.
Things like Big Ad and Best Job In The World.
Stand this work up against the Bupa work and tell me it’s hard working? Or it’s doing the right thing?
Yes the client paid for it. But what exactly have they paid for? No one is going to talk about this. It’s not going to move anyone in any way. It is a shame really.
I remember the clients loved the work that made it to Cannes.
It was their favourite work by miles. The one they talked about, told their friends they did, got promotions because of, grew awareness and the brand from.
Then other clients came along, who wanted to do things differently.
So it goes.
this Cannes quality work… It’s probably best if you don’t talk about it in a public forum. Otherwise people might ask why the client never ran with it and why you lost the business shortly after making it.
I never said that Cannes-winning work only benefitted egos and not business. That would have been ridiculous and even I know it’s not true.
My point was regarding Patts person’s quip about making all work Cannes-worthy. Yes I understand the creative mentality of doing your best/something interesting on every single brief, and it’s admirable. But in reality it’s nothing more than hoping to do something that gets you noticed, using the vehicle of the client’s marketing dollars. Is that not equatable to an ego stroke, or self-interest?
Creatives would have a much easier time if they chanelled more creative energy into extra-curricular creative projects, rather than getting frustrated and pissy that Client X won’t buy their super-duper idea. Advertising is a business that just happens to allow ‘weirdo’ creatives a moderate outlet for their creativity, and some decent wages. Cannes-worthy work is a bonus – there’s a shitload of stuff done that’s not Cannes-worthy that works like crazy. And I guess that’s what the client pays for, no?