A typical execution/idea killing comment is “if you remove the logo, you will not know that the ad is for your brand” or similarly “if you replace the logo the ad would work for another brand”.
These arguments have killed so many potentially good ideas, but let’s take a look at some campaigns that were able to overcome this obstacle and air without getting such criticism.
Here are a few examples of the most successful ads with different endings:
Imagine the Sony “Balls” ad ending with the signature of Skittles or even Samsung.
Or the Honda “grrr” ending with Green Peace or even Toyota diesel engines.
I recently had this argument with a client over a campaign that he claimed was very good, but “if you replace the logo with that of the competition or another brand, it would still work”. I was furious, my argument was as follows “if not for advertising all brands are the same, and the first brand to own a platform or idea emerges as the winner” and in my example I was not only referring to the positioning at the birth of the brand, I would argue that each service or ad can have its own positioning as long as it gets the message across, and entertains/engages the customer.
A typical example you would hear as an argument is Absolut and how all of its ads say absolute without the logo, but I believe that this is an exception and not the rule.
In conclusion, i think that an ad is designed to use a creative platform to sell your brand, and not to use your brand to sell a creative platform.