So yea. Another copycat accusation. As malicious as these things can be, most of the time, they are pure coincidence. Most people aren't stupid enough to blatantly rip of another's work. Well, at least we like to hope that's the case.
Anyway, the current copycat of the month is, allegedly, Weiden + Kennedy which has been accused of copying a 2002 Israeli Yotvata milk commercial created by Young and Rubicam. The ad in question is W+K's Sleepwalker ad for Coke.
For its part, Weiden + Kennedy said, "When we created the Coca-Cola 'Sleepwalker' commercial we and our agency were unaware of this other ad," Coca-Cola representative Susan Stribling wrote in an email. "Now that we've seen the ad, we think both commercials are equally entertaining. While the two share a few common elements, any similarities are coincidental and unintended."
So here we go again. Someone claiming a big brand stole their idea for a commercial. Occasionally, this stuff has merit. Occasionally, it's just sour grapes. In this particular case, we're going with sour grapes. After all, it's not like showing a collage of images is a patented idea or anything. Although we will admit the Pepsi commercial is quite derivative of the original video.
Bryan Chang, who submitted both videos, wrote, "When ad agencies rip off work, is there an obligation to inform the client where the ideas are coming from? I imagine so."
What do you think?
In a continuing effort to fend off government regulation, the advertising industry will, today, add to its arsenal of self regulation tools. Working with the Future of Privacy Forum, several WPP divisions worked together to create an icon which, when placed in an ad along with the text "Why did I get this ad?"and clicked, will take a person to a page explaining how web surfing history, demographics, phychographics and behavioral targeting where used to deliver the ad.
The efforts is aimed at addressing privacy concerns about data marketers use to target their advertising.
Future of Privacy Forum Co-Chairman Jules Polonetsky explained the creative effort - while snubbing associated legal efforts - saying, "We said, let's turn to creative people whose job it is to sell things, to communicate, instead of to lawyers whose job is to create highly accurate things that mean only what they mean and can be highly complex."
The IAB is behind the effort as well but there's no legal requirement any marketer or publisher adopt the icon.
God help us. If you hate political advertising as much as we do, you might want to consider relocating to Mars. Or, if you're not partial to space travel, the North Pole where we hear not too many media outlets call home.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned federal legislation which limits the amount of money corporations can spend to support or oppose a candidate. The decision also made unconstitutional a hefty portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.
You've been warned. You may hate watching more political ads but you might also make a lot more money creating crappy ads pimping candidates and hyping issues. Of course, more ads featuring Paris Hilton or Obama Girl might not be such a bad thing.
In Spain, certain dieting and beauty ads may be banned from advertising before 10PM. A new law states, "Broadcasters cannot carry advertisements for things that encourage the cult of the body and have a negative impact on self-image - such as slimming products, surgical procedures and beauty treatments - which are based on ideas of social rejection as a result of one's physical image or that success is dependent on factors such as weight or looks."
No word on banning ads that make you fat like, oh, say, McDonald's and Burger King.
A recently granted patent has given Google the ability to sell ad space on billboards through its Street View map product. Rather than a Street View user seeing the actual billboard image - in many cases months old - captured by the Google Street View vehicle, the person would see a digitally placed image purchased through the new system.
The patent explains how advertisers can replace their old images with digitally created new ones. It also describes a bidding system which could possibly allow for an advertiser who isn't using the board in real life to buy and apply a digital billboard over the advertiser who is using it in real life.
Those Obamas are everywhere. Whether they like it or not. This time around, it's the President, himself, appearing, without consent, on a Times Square billboard for the garment company Weatherproof. It's an image of the President wearing one of the company's coats when he was standing on the Great Wall of China.
Weatherproof President Freddie Stollmack, who recognized the coat, told the New York Times, "With a magnifying glass, we saw our logo and zipper pull, and we said, 'That's our coat,'"
The image was properly licensed from the Associated Press but Weatherproof failed to obtain necessary permissions from The White House, which has a policy against using the President's image for commercial purposes, for use of the President's image.
From Boston Public Health Commission comes Ethan "Smizzy" McCoy and Talkin' 'bout the flu. You gotta love rap that works the word diarrea into the mix and includes outtakes along with Twitter and Facebook links. Kleenex on... the... mic. (Below.)
Apart from the photo usage rights issue which Adland covers here, is it really any wonder a witty wannabe designer at an outdoor company selected a picture of Paris Hilton and slapped the word "vacant" underneath her to promote the fact the billboard is available? Of course not.
Whether or not Paris Hilton is actually vacuously vacant in the head is beside the point. She (with a lot of help from the media) portrays herself that way so it is without surprise she's become the poster girl for celebu-stupidity.
Hilton has voiced her displeasure with Wellington-based Media5 for using her image without permission. Hilton's manager, Jamie Freed, told Stuff the billboard company could expect to her from Hilton's legal team.
So yea. Britain's Advertising Standards Authority has received several complaints about a new American Apparel ad in Vice Magazine which features a young girl wearing shorts and a hoodie which, in one shot, almost exposes her nipple. The ASA upheld the complaint dubbing the ad "offensive and irresponsible" as the girl in the ad appeared to be under the age of 16.
According to American Apparel, the girl in the ad is 23 and the ad was meant to depict her relaxed in a "home" environment. But the ANA says the ad is inappropriate and must not appear again in its current form.
Inappropriate? How so? Hasn't everyone heard all girls sit around the house self shooting themselves? Have these complainers never visited a Facebook page? Or Webshots? Or Photobucket? Never seen a mirror shot? This is hardly racy compared to what's out there. Oops, this is an ad. Not some 14 year old boys afternoon "motivation."
OK so yea. Cover a bit more of the boobs and everyone will be fine with this.