By Robert Goldrich
A man opens a huge crate in his kitchen. From it he pulls a huge dead fish, which he plops onto a nearby table. The whole fish looks like a fresh catch, but what in the world the guy will do with such a large entrĂ©e we’re not yet certain–perhaps it’s a trophy to be mounted on a wall. But if you put this up on a wall, you wouldn’t even be able to see the wall.
However, his intent becomes known when he reaches into the crate–which we assumed was empty–and pulls out something else, a live sushi chef. He hands the chef the knife that was used to pry open the crate. Indeed a month’s supply of sushi and sashimi is at hand–talk about an extravagant takeout order.
A simple two-word question is then supered on screen. It reads, “What if?” Next we see a Powerball ticket for the Oregon Lottery emerge from a machine into the scene.
“Sushi” is one of three spots in the Lotto campaign–the other two being “Keys” and “Museum.” In the former, a man drives a high-performance sports car through winding roads. But the vehicle runs out of gas. He gets out the car and then hops into another different colored high-performance automobile and resumes his exhilarating sojourn.
And in “Museum,” a woman pushes a shopping cart through an art gallery, taking the Mona Lisa off the wall and placing it in her cart.
The commercials were directed by Brian Lee Hughes of Reginald Pike, Toronto, for agency Borders Perrin Norrander, Portland, Ore.
James Davis and Josefina Nadurata executive produced for Reginald Pike, with Gwyn Fletcher serving as producer. The DP was Eric Edwards.
The agency team consisted of creative director Terry Schneider, copywriter John Heinsma, art director Kent Suter, and producer Scott Fox.
Editor was Chris Jones of DownStream, Portland. DownStream’s Jim Barrett was the colorist. Audio engineer/sound designer was Eric Stolberg of Digital One, Portland. Music composer was Charlie Campbell of Flooded Music, Portland.
Principal actors in “Sushi” were David Johnson and Mio Tadaka.
Google Opens Its Defense In Antitrust Case Alleging Monopoly Over Online Ad Technology
Google opened its defense against allegations that it holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology Friday with witness testimony saying the industry is vastly more complex and competitive than portrayed by the federal government.
"The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years," said Scott Sheffer, a vice president for global partnerships at Google, the company's first witness at its antitrust trial in federal court in Alexandria.
The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly over the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads seen by consumers.
Google counters that the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow type of online ads — essentially the rectangular ones that appear on the top and on the right-hand side of a webpage. In its opening statement, Google's lawyers said the Supreme Court has warned judges against taking action when dealing with rapidly emerging technology like what Sheffer described because of the risk of error or unintended consequences.
Google says defining the market so narrowly ignores the competition it faces from social media companies, Amazon, streaming TV providers and others who offer advertisers the means to reach online consumers.
Justice Department lawyers called witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting their case Friday afternoon, detailing the ways that automated ad exchanges conduct auctions in a matter of milliseconds to determine which ads are placed in front of which consumers and how much they cost.
The department contends the auctions are finessed in subtle ways that benefit Google to the exclusion of would-be competitors and in ways that prevent... Read More