unrelated { Aphex Twin, Come to daddy }

{ Lee Ad Campaign by Troyt Coburn }

YouTube provides a steady stream of inspiration to advertising creatives, but it also leaves young directors vulnerable to having ideas stolen and agencies open to accusations of plagiarism. How can both directors and agencies protect themselves?

In 1998, director Mehdi Norowzian sued the Irish advertising agency Arks Ltd for copyright infringement. He claimed Arks had copied a substantial part of his short film, Joy, in its hugely successful Anticipation advert for Guinness which featured a man performing a flamboyant dance as he waited for his pint of the black stuff to settle. Norowzian lost, the case setting a precedent over the legal rights of directors and artists when claiming the artistic content of their work had been ‘appropriated’ by an agency.

The tense question of plagiarism has become a regular part of advertising life ever since. Accusations from artists and directors crop up periodically in the media, where a discussion on their validity will take place before the subject is usually dropped. The agency in question may be left with a minor stain on its integrity but with no major ill-effects to its client relationship or bank balance. The rise of internet sites such as YouTube has made this issue even more pertinent, however. Suddenly a research tool is available to advertising creatives giving access to millions of films and ideas from all over the world, leaving the makers of these films vulnerable to having their ideas stolen.

{ BusinessWeek | Continue reading }

{ Animal NY | more }

{ HIV-Foundation / Finnish AIDS Council | Agency: Taivas, Finland }

I think our industry would be better if agencies were as comfortable with change as we like to tell clients they should be. I think our industry would be better if all of the people who speak at industry functions and say ‘It’s all about big ideas’ actually had a few. I think our industry would be better if everyone who complains about how terrible advertising is as a business, got out of it.

{ Ron Berger, CEO/CCO for the NYC and San Francisco offices of Euro RSCG Worldwide, 2006 | Quote: Jonathan Kneebone | Australian Creative, April/May 2006 }

{ Sony commercial, 1990s }

{ For several years, a three-story, wrap-around billboard has blanketed the lower floors of the 19th-century Cushman Building, 174 Broadway, at Maiden Lane. 10 days ago, the Department of Buildings took the sign down. “These signs were installed without a permit, and we removed them to protect pedestrians and the building’s tenants,” said Ed Fortier, the agency’s executive director of special enforcement. The department said that 517 violation notices had been issued to OTR Media Group-controlled locations citywide. | NY Times | Continue reading }

related { This site intends to survey all of the signs in New York City from 14th Street to 42nd Street. }

In the late 1960s, two separate groups—the Diggers in San Francisco and the Yippies in New York—began operating “free stores.” These were places where people could come to get things they needed—food, medicine, clothes, and, in some cases, cash—for free. These were designed simultaneously as parodies of, and alternatives to, the usual American consumer materialism. The stores were not around for very long because (at least in New York) people would come in and simply take everything they could put their hands on. Such predictable incursions were contrary to the spirit of the enterprise, but people who set themselves against market principles are ill-positioned to enforce “limit one per customer.”

Now, four decades later, comes Chris Anderson, editor of Wired and author of The Long Tail, whose new book proclaims that giving things away for free is the “radical” new business model of the future. According to Anderson, there are a variety of ways businesses can and should do this, and once they do, they can charge for other goods and services to make their money. (…)

The problem is that—outside of a handful of examples, almost all of which are Internet- or digital-based—giving things away for free does not work, or does not work in any significant way. (…)

In the digital world, there are plenty of cases in which “free” hasn’t worked. Back in the dot-com boom, the Internet services provider NetZero promised “free Internet forever.” The company is still around, sort of, in the form of United Online, except that it doesn’t really provide free Internet access anymore, and it doesn’t make money. (Note: It lost money in 2008, but had a profitable first quarter in 2009.) (…)

If Anderson’s thesis were correct, Condé Nast could presumably build the circulation of a free Wired magazine so high that they could then charge advertisers even more than they currently do and not only make up for lost circulation revenue but exceed it. This remains the hope of many Web publications that give away all their content for free.

But here’s the rub: Condé Nast doesn’t want those readers. It charges a very high price to advertisers—in Wired’s case, about $90,000 a page, according to Publishers Information Bureau, though in reality much less. The only possible justification for such enormous sums is the notion that advertisers will reach a select—Condé Nast really likes the word prestigious—group of readers. Expand that reader pool too much, or in the wrong direction, and the prestige justification evaporates. (…)

If advertisers won’t pay and the magazine loses money on its subscriptions, where will the money come from to create the goods that Wired gives away? Which just raises the ultimate question: If the free model would ruin Anderson’s own business, why does he think it’s so great for most other businesses?

{ The Big Money | Continue reading }

illustration { Dreamland | Emilie Simon new single }

{ Thyroid cancer is growing 6 times faster than prostate cancer, 5 times faster than testicular cancer, 7 times faster than breast cancer. Ask your doctor to check your neck. | Print ads for thyroid cancer message | Agency: Lowe, NYC }

The new Peter Arnell-designed Pepsi logo that is meant to resemble a smile and that has been plastered across North America is nowhere to be found in two new commercials, “The Rising” from CLM BBDO, France, and “Penguin” from BBDO, New York, now debuting in Europe and set to roll out in other regions around the world.

After spending millions of dollars to create the logo and introduce it at events with the potential for global audiences — New Year’s Eve in Times Square, Barack Obama’s inauguration and the Super Bowl — it’s baffling that Pepsi, a beloved global brand, has chosen to soldier on with two distinctly different brand identities for the “next year or two.”

“The new Pepsi brand identity recently introduced in North America has generated a very positive response from consumers,” said a Pepsi International spokesman. “We expect to introduce the new Pepsi identity around the world over the next year or two. We will communicate specifics about those changes when we formulate our marketing plans.”

{ AdAge | Continue reading | Previously: A leaked pdf outlines the thinking behind the controversial new Pepsi logo. It may be one of the most ridiculous things ever perpetrated by somebody calling himself a designer. }