Teardowns

Playable ads, taken apart

Close readings of real interactive advertising — what a piece of creative is doing, in what order, and whether it works. Our own analysis rather than a summary of anyone else's.

About this topic

Most writing about ad creative stops at the level of advice: get to the interaction quickly, keep it simple, make the end card clear. All true, all repeated everywhere, and none of it much help when you are looking at a real ad and trying to work out why it holds together.

These pieces take specific work apart. What the first frame is doing, where the first interaction lands, what the mechanic claims about the product, where the ad chooses to stop, and whether the thing it promised is the thing it delivers.

The aim is not a verdict. It is a method you can apply to the next ad you see, including your own.

How these are written:

  • We describe what is observable. What happens on screen, in what order, at roughly what time. Where we are inferring intent rather than reporting behaviour, we say so.
  • Performance claims are attributed or absent. We do not have access to anyone else's campaign data, so we do not report it. An ad that is well built is described as well built, not as high converting.
  • Criticism is about the work, not the team. Every ad here was made under constraints we cannot see — a brief, a deadline, a network's spec.
  • Being wrong is allowed. These are readings, and a reading can be mistaken. Where a choice has a defensible explanation we did not think of, we would rather hear it than not.

Why teardowns beat checklists

A checklist tells you what good ads have. A teardown shows you a real set of decisions, including the compromises, which is what the work actually consists of. Nobody ever sat down to build an ad and found a checklist sufficient.