The most epic diaper commercial of all time

Fredrick Bond got together with Mass Market to give Huggies the Philips Carousel treatment. Despite its ironically gratuitous approach, the concept and tag definitely work. You are marketing to parents after all, so why not ditch the cute animated characters and have some fun with the execution.

Client/Product: Huggies Little Movers Diapers

Agency: JWT, New York
Executive Creative Director: Walt Connelly
Creative Director: Richie Glickman
Art Director: David Suarez
Copywriter: Daniel Gonzalez
Head of Art: Aaron Padin
Title Animation: Chadwick Whitehead
Director of Integrated Production: Clair Grupp
Director of Brand Production: Joe Calabrese
Senior Integrated Producer: Owen Katz
Assistant Producer: Mike McLoughlin
Business Director: Karyn Rockwell
Account Executives: Aissatou Balde, Raymond Lynch

Production Company: MJZ
Director: Fredrik Bond
Executive Producer: Lisa Margulis
Senior Executive Producer: Jeff Scruton
Producer: Nicholas Wrathall
DP: Hoyte van Hoytema

Visual Effects and Editorial: MassMarket, New York
Executive Producers: Rich Rama, Justin Lane
Producer: Nancy Nina Hwang
Associate Producers: Marcus Lansdell, Justin Romero
Editor: Cass Vanini
Lead Flame: David Parker
Senior Flame: Jamie Scott
CG Supervisor: Damon Ciarelli
CG Lead: Andy Jones
CG: Todd Akita, Jonah Friedman, Soo Hee Han, Xuan Siefert
CG Modeler: Tom Cushwa
CG Previz: Ian Brauner
Tracking Lead: Joerg Liebold
Tracking: Denis Trutanic
Flame: Joanne Unger
Junior Flame: Jeen Lee, Adam Flynn

Audio Post: JWTwo
Sound Mixer: Andy Green
Music Producer: Dan Burt
Audio Producer: Greg Tiefenbrun

Animation Company: Buck, New York
Executive Producer: Kate Treacy, Anne Skopas
Producer: Kevin Hall
Creative Director: Orion Tait
CG Supervisor: Lars Holmgren
3D Generalist: Kevin Couture, Arvid Volz, Dave Soto
CG Lead/Modeling/Comping: Ryan O’Phelan

About the author

Matt Lambert

NYC / London



That is amazing 4 sure!!!!! I had to watch twice.
By the way: “EPIC” is one of the top 10 most overused words of 2010. HNY.

Matt Lambert

definitely tongue in cheek…


Love me some Philips “Carousel”


I don’t say this often; but it would actually be nice to see this at 60fps or something. That 24p/25p jitteriness really made this otherwise amazing piece kind of difficult to watch.


Nice work, not sure if it was worth main page tho.


Uhm, to come back here again. What is the agencies job nowadays. Be creative or rip-off other stuff?

Are those creatives listed in the credits not ashamed to have ripped of Philips “Carousel” ( but actually flaunt how “creative” they were on this diapers ad?

And I agree such a rip-off deserves no main feature spot here.


I can’t help but notice that there seems to be some bitterness in relation to Nagi Noda’s technique proliferating into other ads. As with all techniques in film, once discovered they are often repeated by other directors – when done enough times, isn’t that how conventions in film are established?

True, it’s not an original idea in regards to technique, but if anything it is a cheeky and humourous version of the very sober Carousel. It’s worth pointing out that I am not a huge fan of this Huggies spot, but I think we should all just accept the fact that ‘ripping off’ [read: making homage to, developing/evolving, making a pastiche of, copying] a concept is just part of the creative process – always has been, always will be.


But what if Huggies comes to you and says “can you do something like the Phillips ad”? “Can you guys pull that off”?
Do you say – No, I’d rather not rip-off anyone, or sure we can… I’d love to have 50 grand in my pocket… or whatever the price is.
Huggies is just looking for eyeballs and $$$, not to change the world.

Yes, I’ve given up.

the doctor

nagi noda did this in 2003…can’t believe agencies are still ripping her off.


I can. They will probably be ripping her off in another five years too. I myself can’t wait to rip her off asap.


Lighting and comp breaks halfway in. Lighting is inconsistent. It seems they ran out of time. Definitely looks flatter and not as dynamic as the Philips ad or the CSI sequences.

Although I really like the performances and poses of the actors.


The comparison of phillips to huggies to nagi noga seems a bit redundant in this instance. The story, look and feel are different in all pieces. The common thread is the methodology (even though this is actually different in all pieces). It seems a bit strange to only judge something like this based on the medium of which it was shown, instead of the concept as well. Given this is a site that has large technical component, but also one that in the past has been supportive of a simple execution of a great concept.

Advancement of technology allows us to move forward and create more advanced and creative work. Similarities start to exist as artists and directors start to use the technology as it’s developed and streamlined. There are those that are the trailblazers in the industry, pioneering new methods which should be recognized for sure, but I feel that the term “Rip” is often confused with homage or even advancement. Technology is created to allow us to achieve something that these pioneers started. It seems weird to criticize using new methods. If we never took advantage of it, I don’t think we’d end up as far along as we are.

my 0.02

the doctor

mfh…what you’re saying could be true in many cases…but for this particular idea technique and ‘concept’ are inseparable…you can’t claim that much exploring or advancement is occurring just because it’s executed with a different story and (arguably) better technology. considering the well-known tendency of agencies to recycle the good ideas and hard work of others- yeah, the word ‘rip’ does come to mind…are the originators reaping the benefits through press or financial gain? is the idea evolving when all that’s changed are a few characters and a touch of tech polish? when it’s an evolution worthy of applause, great…we can call that an homage…but more often than not it’s just a watered down version of the original.

Comments are closed.