Great appointment, well done Suzanne, and BIG.

I like it, and the applications look strong as well. It needs to be clear and straightforward for ease of use, why over-complicate it? Well done Stand.

Limp idea, flaccid typography. Looks like an early visual not fully scoped out - premature, even.

I am sure Richard and co are on the case as far as the 'bigger story' about the third piece of new business is concerned.

But from the coverage out there already, it seems to me that the media are somewhat guilty of stirring things up - the Herald implies that they told CofS about the original story in The Drum. Hookson never said they were doing a rebrand, but a 'development of the existing logo' - no doubt they need revisions to make a logo based on a 400-year old crest more easily applicable today, particularly on the web. But a re-interpretation of the Hookson release referring to a POTENTIAL "rebrand... costing tens of thousands of pounds" makes for better controversy doesn't it?

Having said all of that it's a sober lesson to all of us not to rush out our new biz announcements without getting clearance. I hope whatever final payment was made, was a fair representation of whatever work was done.

I'm sorry but it fails for me too. Apart from the point about the term 'viral' which has already been well made, and a 'getting lots of people into a small space' gimmick that's been executed much better in plenty of other campaigns, I feel there is nothing engaging about it except a moderately cute, somewhat vintage car.

And by far the least engaging thing about is is the queue of people, who look like they are going to the gallows rather than interacting with an exciting and relevant recruitment medium. I just can't see anyone in receipt of this as an email, being incentivised to pass it on.

Unless the car's for sale..?