Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The First Black Swan of '08



I predict a D&AD Silver, and 10 million YouTube views.

Bastards.

UPDATE. The ad has been removed from YouTube, but can be viewed here.

229 comments:

1 – 200 of 229   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Such a good ad. By the end of it there's no way you can dispute the thought. 'It's easy to miss something you're not looking for'. Well executed thought, engaging with humour too.

Cleaver said...

Now that's the one that gets the immediate "wish I'd done it" reaction from me.

Not that there's anything wrong with singing dogs.

Holly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

do you have the link then holly?

Holly said...

This is a straight rip of something done by the University of Illinois in 1999. That's nine years ago.

http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html - this is the original video, with a gorilla rather than a bear, but otherwise identical.

It fits the thought, yes, but it's ancient and not even slightly original.

Anonymous said...

Has Juan been moonlighting?

Anonymous said...

So what was the last great ad that wasn't jacked from Youtube then?

Anonymous said...

Yes, but we were told to look to see how many passes the white team made, so we were deliberately distracted. When I'm driving, I'm not looking for one specific thing, but any number of things - cyclists included - but then again, I am a great driver......

Anonymous said...

At least they changed it to a carpark.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

They must have gotten an advanced copy of that Black Swan book and deduced the viral formula. Scoundrels!

While a poignant message, this is perhaps borrowed interest.

Carb Free Creativity said...

This is a direct lift from a previous awareness test! Links on Holly's comment.

Saw it last year. Very clever.

The moonwalking bear? Could it at least have worn a bike helmet to have some relevance.

Guess whoever saw it found a use for it in an ad.

Remember to save the links to those good videos people. Never know when they could win you an award.

Anonymous said...

Re 1:37

If an ad is a blatant rip off then why shouldn’t someone say so?

It’s an obscure thing to 'borrow'and the team unlucky to be caught out but it’s identical.

At least the team could have nicked the thought and executed it differently.

Who cares anyway, it’s shit.

Anonymous said...

who would have believed it, I avoided hordes of cyclists this morning only to reverse my Porsche over the worlds only Michael Jackson impersonating grizzly in the office car park.

Just goes to show you can't be too careful out there, but it'll look good mounted on my office wall.

Will said...

...and they did the same test on a robert winston TV programme a year or two back. except it was in a basketball court.


so it's been double ripped.

it works, but it's no D&AD silver surely. unless we think it's a good idea to award unoriginality.

just saw a spanish ad which did the whole hands making the words thing too.

come on people, i know we only use 10% of our brains, but at least look at the 9.9% that isn't our memory.

Carb Free Creativity said...

I agree that the execution should have at least been a bit different.

Then again. Maybe it's the only way the idea works.

But it's not a rip off of another ad. For an ad it's pretty fresh and will get the punters talking, plus spark a lot of creative banter.

Job done!

Anonymous said...

Re Anonymous 1.37pm

Go find something else to
pick on girls about apart
from periods and tampons.
Not very creative is it?

Anonymous said...

it's not bad but feels really generic. Could be used for many claims about concentration (look out for the motorbike, or the pedestrian, or you can never be too concentrated on the road...)
If instead of a bear they'd used a bear cycling then maybe it would've been the point stronger...

Dont think is silver. Not nomination either... maybe in-book because it looks kind of fresh?

Ed said...

The big difference between this and the other ripped-off gorilla is that this video's been doing the rounds on the internet for years. I hope they told the client where they got the idea from otherwise there'll be some pretty pink faces at M&C.

the Golden oracle of truth said...

Goodness. They're fucking identical!

So fucking identical that it makes you wonder why they didn't change the sport or the bloke-in-animal-suit thing.

Lazy, Lazy, Lazy Shits.

It makes the two drumming gorillas look as similar as a banjo and The Great Wall of China.

Anonymous said...

This is a great ad. Engaging, entertaining, memorable. I don't care where they got the idea from. It does the job.

Anonymous said...

Agree. Very lazy and if I was the team I'd be totally embarrassed.

Anonymous said...

does anyone question whether it'd have any effect on the majority of people of the age to drive? As I switched off the minute I saw another youtubesque shot bunch of 14 year olds playing basketball

wonder how many more older drivers with bad habits and little concern for basketball or moonwalking bears where already distracted away from paying a blind bit of notice to it?

JC said...

2.07 I agree.

If you don't like it, go and do something better.

Anonymous said...

it's a fun film

but it's not creative.

JJ said...

I think everyone involved should hang their thieving heads in shame.

Yet another rip to make our industry look worse than it already does.

Please, if you're about to rip off a Youtube clip (especially as closely as this), don't. We will call you on it. There is nowhere to hide. If you are a lazy thief, the internet is a bitch.

Anonymous said...

2.12

do you mean 'do' or steal?

Anonymous said...

2.17

Could not agree more. You’d have to be pretty stupid to copy something so closely and expect not to be slated for it.

Anonymous said...

1.59 pm re tampons

go and do some ironing and get off your husbands computer. if he catches you you'll get a slap.

Gordon Comstock said...

It's a scientific test right, something which is, by definition, repeatable. This one happens to also be astonishing. The good idea is repeating it to send this message in an astonishing way.

You really have to crank up your whingeing machine to 11 if you want to not like this one. It clearly works.

Our job is sending the message, by hook or crook. Good manners dictates that we don't copy one another. Everything else is fair game.

Anonymous said...

2.26 pm re slapping

Oh dear very Benny Hill
circa 1977.
I thought you guys worked
in the creative industry???

Anonymous said...

Is it from M&C Saatchi? Another rip off to go with their Ikea/Crispin rip off for MFI if it is

Anonymous said...

2.26

do you work at M&C?

Anonymous said...

but what about the moonwalking bear?

it's easy to miss something you're not looking for.

1)check your balls more often. testicular cancer.

2)check your boiler isn't pumping out carbon monoxide.

3)look out for the early signs of meningitis.

generic thieving gimps

Anonymous said...

The word verification just said tLeAf...

Weird.

Mr Orange said...

Come on Scamp, you really think this is a silver!?

Finky, finky, finky... you should be bloody ashamed of yourself. Where the hell is any of the relevance to cycling!?

and... 'it's easy to miss something you're not looking for'. Surely... it's easy to HIT something you're not looking for.

This just stinks of stale sweat. IF... and only if you decide to lower yourself and thieve an idea (because, yes, it is an idea. No... the idea was not to turn it into an ad!??!) then change it. Make it relevant. Adapt for your cause.

It might well work but it could have worked so much better in so many ways.

Anonymous said...

Wheather the psycological test already exists or not the genius of this ad is taking something that has been in the public domain for years and aligning it so powerfully to cycling safety. It's the first safety ad i've seen that actually lets you experiencce the problem rather than just shouting at you about it. Wish i'd done it - definitely a silver pencil, maybe even a black.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

black pencil my arse.

Mr Man said...

Black?

Are you retarded? Cog was denied a black for a far smaller resemblance to its 'source' material.

And who shouted loudest on the jury for that to happen?

That's right, Finky.

Anonymous said...

anon 3.00

fight you outside M&C at six oclock if you fancy it.

Anonymous said...

Re 3.00,
It's quite amusing reading your post when Mr Orange was blatantly right and you decide to follow up three minutes later with something so blatantly wrong.

Somebody please tell me where the 'idea' is in turning it into an ad.

That's not an idea. Just because Tony Davidson said it was for cog however many years ago.

It's not their intellectual property. If you pinch it. Make damn sure they get ALL the praise (and i mean ALL).

Anonymous said...

Black pencil?

Are you mental?

It'd be lucky to get a chewed biro and even that should be shoved firmly in the eyes of the creatives to stop them pillaging youtube for a while.

FlashTorcher said...

Maybe we should organize a "flash torching" of M&C? Anyone in?

Anonymous said...

i've seen better "you can't see cyclists/motorcyclists when driving" type ads.

and, the funny part, i noticed the moonwalking bear first time i saw it.

Anonymous said...

If an ad copies an ad that's a no no. Anything else is ok. Am guessing the two tests are identical cos thats the only way it works. No way genius, but still a good ad. That said lets burn m&c anyway

Anonymous said...

"flash torching"

now there's an idea, carefully no one from M&C reads it, steals it and burn themselves down.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone NOT spot the moonwalking bear the first time round?

Anonymous said...

At least it's better than that bloody bus ad M&C done a few weeks ago, well shit.

And I spotted the monkey straight away too.

Who are the chaps responsible? Or is it our Graham?

Anonymous said...

To be honest, no I didn't spot the bear.

The Arsonist said...

Golden Square, what time?

Anonymous said...

6:30 good for you?

Anonymous said...

i didn't see the bear either - i'll go and stab out my eyes in shame

Anonymous said...

Scamp, in light of the latest you tube scandal have you any thoughts on the matter?

Anonymous said...

3.26
Think we found another M&C employee

ORLY? said...

why is everyone banging on about M&C? You'd think if they can find that youtube "inspiration" they'd be able to find out which agency this ad is from.


http://www.brandrepublic.com/Campaign/News/789610/WCRS-unveils-observation-test-ad-Transport-London/

Silver pencil? It is directed by Chris Palmer...



Having said that, what the hell. Let's continue bitching about M&C. It's fun even if they didn't do that ad...!

Daniel said...

Someone sent me a link to this blog. For what it's worth, I created the original "gorilla" video. It is not pubic domain. It is copyrighted, and I own the copyright. This ad agency never contacted me. They just stole the idea and didn't bother to change it at all.
-Dan

ORLY? said...

For the hyperlink impaired, according to Campaign/BrandRepublic, the ad comes courtesy of WCRS & Chris Palmer.

Anonymous said...

as amusing as me and my partner think it is that the idea is obviously copied from that scientific experiment, surely we should be looking at something far more important... the two new think! scientific ads AND singing dog all in about the space a week? you don't normally get 3 ads as good as those (or at least that create as much banter) in the space of a month!

Anonymous said...

Isn't the answer to all this to have a communal agreement on what constitutes an acceptable level of originality for entry into awards?

Some great ads, say the early Tango stuff, clearly came from blue sky/white paper thinking.

Some, like Cog or Gorilla and this one, came from cleverly but derivatively applying an existing idea to an ad brief. Maybe close adaptations like this should be declared on the award entry forms and the ads placed into a separate, lower award category. It sure would save a lot of fuss.

But maybe this would open a pandora's box - legal debates over intellectual copyright, which is what we are really talking about here, are very complex and would keep armies of lawyers busy in the entertainment biz.

talking of which, did anyone notice this warning on the original clip :

"This video is © 1999 by Daniel J. Simons. It is provided solely so that individuals can view it. This version of the video may not be used downloaded, saved, copied, reproduced, or used for any other purpose."

The two bit of film are so close,l i think Daniel J. Simons may have a case...

Anonymous said...

suppose if we burn down the whole of Golden Sq we've got all bases covered.

Anonymous said...

Whoops, who are the team at WCRS then?

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Jack said...

While you two are having a fist fight can you tell your mate to get off my swing please.

The Arsonist said...

3:39 - Got it.

See you at 6.30

Anonymous said...

3.39

Sounds like a bloody good plan.

Lunar BBDO said...

I sense Scamp's first 100 comment post.

Congrats in advance.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone see the Fake Trade on TV last night?

A guy who ignored copyright warnings very similar to the one on the original website, but that happened to be on films found himself in prison for 2 years for copyright infringements.

He did it for his own financial gains just as the team and agency did so where's the difference?

Anonymous said...

Serge and Steve, I believe, should be the focus of your ire. They also did the heart-stoppingly bad 'Lyriquid Perfection' for Smirnoff Ice.

Anonymous said...

3:48

great idea i'd think all of WCRS should bummed in prison as punishment. That should learn them.

M&C too.

Anonymous said...

Daniel J Simons should take those f*ckers to the cleaners!

Anonymous said...

scamp has been awfully quite, someone should ring bbh and see if he is ok he may have jumped out of the building for first thinking a singing dog ad is great and then loving a moonwalking bear ad.

Anonymous said...

real punishment would be to big it up like Scamp has then at the D&AD awards just show the original film instead with the spotlight burning hard on their thieving heads for all to see.

Anonymous said...

Oh no...Its been removed from youtube due to a copyright claim from
a third party.

Anonymous said...

They obviously saw the film at its original site. Are they blind?

Are the Tfl/WCRS lawyers the ones who withdrew it?

Are the team absolutely shitting themselves?

Are Campaign delighted at having something substantial to write about?

Is Scamp preparing his 'this is a bottom drawer thing' comment?

Anonymous said...

there's a difference between being inspired by YouTube content and ripping something off - can't believe there's talk of a pencil for nicking something so blatantly.

ORLY? said...

"this video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party"


Hmmm....the plot thickens.

But i guess the creatives don't have anything to worry about. Looks like they'll all be destroyed in a horrible accidental fire at 6pm...

Anonymous said...

who wrote the ad???

Anonymous said...

the team have been arrested and are being taken to compton street for a bumming.

Anonymous said...

The ad is still available at its website:

www.dothetest.co.uk

Anonymous said...

The stupid thing is how unnecessary this all is. Chances are this Daniel is a reasonable enough bloke. If TFL or the agency had approached him, asked if they could use the idea for free (seeing as it's for an important cause), but in return for a big credit and lots of free publicity, then the chances are they could have worked something out.

Anonymous said...

4.10

Maybe it was Knock off Nigel?

Lunar BBDO said...

IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH SERGE AND STEVE. DO NOT BURN THEM DOWN.

Anonymous said...

it still appears on youtube on kit dayaram's page so suppose him and Tom may have done it?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I liked their ad with no billboards for Sky. Did they get the Spanish archer after a very brief tenure at BBH? If so, Scamp may know them.

Anonymous said...

@Cleaver 1.11 pm.

Wish you'd done it now?

Anonymous said...

I won a pencil for something I nicked. No one's found it yet.

The secret of genius is hiding your sources.

;-)

Scamp said...

My view - sorry if you've heard it before, but someone asked - is that what matters is not whether something has been done before, but whether it feels fresh. And to me, this feels fresh. (The question of copyright is a separate one).

Anonymous said...

would scamp not prefer that the two went hand in hand, then there would be none of this nonsense just praise?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know the creative team who did this ad??

Anonymous said...

i don't, but my hunch would be Kit Dayaram and Tom Spicer. They used to be at M&C, but are now at WCRS. Nice chaps.

pisspoorenglish said...

All art is immitation etc etc ...

but blatant theft, copying something like for like in full knowledge, is just a fucking knife in the back.

Cleaver said...

Anon at 4:37

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say I wish I'd thought of it.

Anonymous said...

burn both down i guess.

Anonymous said...

scamp, whats the prize for being the 100th poster?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Prize for 100th poster.

Probably a really bad bear suit from Scamps mates over at WCRS.

Mr Orange said...

For the first time in my life I'm actually REALLY enjoying the bitching.

Anonymous said...

Tom and Kit should be ashamed of themselves. McDonalds are hiring...

Anonymous said...

am i a winner scamp?

Anonymous said...

Everyone’s up in arms about this because it’s such a good ad.

Anonymous said...

did i win?

Anonymous said...

no - i am

Anonymous said...

I see Tom and Kit are here then...

Anonymous said...

does anyone else find it deeply disturbing that so many twats have been ready to throw a punch at M&C without knowing they were the right agency? And, no, I don't work there...just hope I'm never caught up in a crowd of blood thirsty creatives without a brain cell between them

Anonymous said...

5.32 I'm afraid you'll only be judged a winner in Scamps eyes if you'd copied someone else comment and posted as your own claiming all credit for yourself...nice try though

Anonymous said...

For my money this ad is no different from the optical illusions ad from m&c. They've both nicked science experiments to make their point. One is getting an aweful lot of grief while the other hasn't really attracted comment. I know which i'd have rather done.

Anonymous said...

5.35

No... anyone else? No? Nobody?

Sorry mate, guess you're on your own.

Anonymous said...

5.35

No.

Anonymous said...

Nope, not deeply disturbing, they did rip off the IKEA ad after all.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 5.35

It's more disturbing that you took it seriously to think it'd come to blows, you obviously neither a creative or worked out the industry is all a big game yet.

Good luck in your new career of teaching flower arranging to sunday school kids.

Anonymous said...

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I think two years hard labour for T&K on that shite WCRS Weetabix strategy would be just.

Anonymous said...

'Obscene language - and comments that are abusive, or offensive, and not even trying to be witty - are allowed here. But only about the work, not people.'


Scamp! Scamp! I've just been called a twat by anon 5.35. Block that post.

James Feess said...

Maybe there was some theft but it is an ad to help save lives. I would have a bigger beef if the ad was for ultra thin condoms or something like that.

Anonymous said...

Scamp, whats your tuesday tip?

Anonymous said...

ultra thin condoms can save lives too.

Matt said...

Originality is an effectiveness issue. It only matters if the consumer has seen it before, and thinks it is a rip-off, and therefore thinks less of the brand.

Professionals who try to decode artistic influences of other people's work don't count (they are the marketing equivalent of trainspotters). We are here to make money not art.

Anonymous said...

Matt, you have a point.

However, as creatives we're here to judge the work on a creative/industry perspective, not as consumers, right?

SO, ad is a rip-off hence it's shit.

Anonymous said...

I think Juan gets away with it as he nicks things and makes them epic.

This is a straight copy, just changing the setting is not really on.

That’s what bugs me, the lack of effort it make it different.

Anonymous said...

i see your point Matt but have to agree totally with Anon 5.49 on this one.

Or else using your logic it'd be free reign for creatives and planners to simply emulate even other ads from the other side of the world under the illusion that people here probably haven't seen them and by reproducing them with a different logo we'd save ourselves alot of effort for hopefully achieve similar results as the original work. Say taking the Carlton Draught Big ad and running it here for Heineken and saying it's fine as only 'trainspotter ad people will know'

It'd kill original thinking and standing up for this is a very dangerous president to set.

Anonymous said...

The ad is a total rip-off of something else.
Zero creativity.

However, I still like it as an ad. When I saw it on TV i thought it was engaging, memorable and communicated a clear, believeable message.

So as a creative I am torn.

The consumer in me likes it a lot. The art director in me doesn't like it one bit.

Anonymous said...

what about the man behind you, thats in you, does he like it?

Anonymous said...

122nd comment! wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Anonymous said...

643 anon. funny!

Anonymous said...

Steve?

Anonymous said...

Scamp - the question of copyright isn't a separate one. Copyright for any piece of work automatically rests with the person who created it, no matter whether they declare it or not. All that separates each case is whether the originator has asserted their copyright vigorously enough, and whether they have the substantial funds necessary to sue for copyright infringement.

Your stance is effectively saying that it's bad to steal from potentially well-resourced people (like other ad agencies), but OK to steal from poor students or struggling artists who can't do much about it. Indeed, by your argument, the poorer and more obscure the artist the better, as the chances are the work will still be relatively obscure.

And by the way, courts are usually pretty sensible when it comes to distinguishing between actual copying, and mere similarity (the 'there's nothing new under the sun' argument). It's no use using the latter to excuse the former.

mm said...

Not only is it a stolen idea but the lazy execution is just damn right insulting.

My nightmare has become reality; account handlers have become the last bastion of honesty and integrity within the agency.

p.s. tell me anon 6.08pm is not a copywriter.

Brian Sewell said...

God, I know what you mean, mm.

President instead of precedent?

Among other crimes to the English language.

Anonymous said...

I read on David Reviews that ad was created with the assistance of a lecturer in experimental psychology based at Sussex University!

The idea was ripped off from the University of Illinois website.

Whats all that about? sounds like someone trying to cover their tracks to me.

Anonymous said...

You're all jealous because you're probably not earning as much as me.

And definitely not what I'll earn off the back it.

Lunar BBDO said...

The big row and upcoming court case/bumming/arson aside, I do like this optical illusion strategy for road safety. It's really fresh for an age-old brief.

Are M&C and WCRS sharing a planner or is it all a big coincidence?

(128 and counting, Scamp. Let's have a sweepstake on where it ends. I'll take 164)

anonymousssssssse said...

I did psychology at Sussex. Three years of spliffs and fanny, my friends, and a 2.2 at the end.

That's one way to become a CD on six figures.

Anonymous said...

re 4.35

I was wondering the same thing

they moved to BBH then swiftly to WCRS?

Heard they are a good team, sure a few of the comments above stem from a bit of jealousy.

Anonymous said...

Lecturer in Experimental Psychology?

That ad was created with the help of Ronnie fucking Biggs.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Re 8.26

I do love a bit of gossip (no publicity is bad publicity and all that…)

So anyone know what went Pete Tong during their 3 month probation period?

John said...

This is old hat in America folks. This has been used numerous times already. D&AD silver? Not so much.

Anonymous said...

Since this seems to be the most read blog in ad land, I just wanted to say 'Helen, owwww you make my loins ache with ecsatcy you little minx you, grrrrr dagnamy'.

Sorry, compose yourself man (SFX: slap around the face, cold shower etc, espresso, wxxxxk) oh on the subject of 'copy some chaps film' or not, hmmm its already got a BTAA right? Been entered in D&AD and One Show has already been judged, whats going to happen next? This blogs better than Emerdale.

And we are at only at 130 odd comments, I feel a bit of editorial in campaign comming on.

Anonymous said...

Full credits from bestadsontv.com:


Product : TFL
Agency : WCRS. London.
Creatives :
LEON JAUME (Executive Creative Director)
Yan elliott / Luke Williamson (Creative Director)
Kit Dayaram / Vince Chasteauneuf (Art Director)
Tom Spicer / Simon Aldridge (Copywriter)
James Lethem (Agency Producer)
Laura Crowther (Assistant Producer)
Director(s) : Chris Palmer
Prod. Co. : Gorgeous
Country : United Kingdom


And now, please continue the bitching...

The Ad Agency IT GUY said...

I know this is a little off subject, but is Linux any better than the Macintosh OSX operating software?

I mean I know that linux is supported by corporations such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Sun Microsystems. And recently it has been reported that hacks can much more easily hack into Mac OS (pre 06) than Linux based systems. Any thoughts? Or are you all pre occupied by this advertisment which I'm sure is a very important topic?

Anonymous said...

Is TfL in charge of this ad then? I didn't realise there was a connection between them and the Think! campaign. I thought it was nationwide.

the ad agency it guy said...

Aahhh you see, I think what happened is someone has made out that that WCRS ripped off this guys film because Quicktime is a multimedia framework developed by Apple. which is capable of handling various formats of digital video, media clips, sound, text, animation and many types of interactive images. And is editable within certain OS backed software aplications. So maybe someone is out to get them, and it isn't a 'nick' after all?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Ad agency IT guy - I don't know what you're on about but will you take your irrelevant ramblings elsewhere, please?

Anonymous said...

9.46 - thats the funniest comment yet!

post specific spam

genius.

Anonymous said...

How did it take FOUR creatives to rip off the ad?

Anonymous said...

If you click through from the basketball site you'll find that the two illusion ads seem to be for the same Tfl body.

also, there seems to be another rip involved. Have a look at Lunar's blog. It's not as close but it does look similar.

Anonymous said...

Re 10.11

Not as close!!! it's a shameless rip of a famous Audio Bullys promo.

That really takes the piss, they even have the stupidity to use an Audio Bullys track. Perhaps they thought using the exact same track would give the game away.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/media/newscentre/real-life.shtml

Anonymous said...

Fuck me.

That is a worse nick than the basketball thing. At least the basketball thing wasn't an ad.

Anonymous said...

I am shocked and appalled!

(please god let this be the quote they end up using in the campaign blog sidebar thingy.).

Anonymous said...

I thought it was really clever when I first saw it in my year 10 science class, about 12 years ago. Sadly, this is a very, very old idea.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Anonymous said...

do i hear 151 comments? 151 comments from the gentleman in the front.

152?

Anonymous said...

Blimey away for a day and all hell has broken lose.

After all that's been rightly said about it's blatant theft what's the bets those retarded morons at Campaign have it as ad of the week?

It seems to be happening so often nowadays maybe a new Campaign section for rip off of the week should be started?

Anonymous said...

shamelessly copied after this classic attention test:
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html
:)

Anonymous said...

Wow, you get full marks for not reading the comments before you...

We know, we've been discussing it for the last 150 comments.

Anonymous said...

It won over 3 creative directors and has another 1 creative director singing it's praises on his blog.

Worryingly with these kind of unoriginal thinkers on the jury it'll probably still win some awards.

Shame on you all.

Anonymous said...

The morality of creative thievery, like all ethical questions, is a purely personal decision based on a multitude of grey areas with attached caveats. There can be no conclusion to this argument. What we're not talking about is the way that the new generation view ads. If you like an ad on TV you google or youtube it. If there's any plagiarism involved it gets noticed within days and attached to the results of your search. In the past ads have got away with plagiarism because it was undetected until way after the juries voted, now you've got no chance. But it's not just about awards. If a brand makes an ad that steals ideas then this will be associated to this brand. And if, like honda, your brand is all about new thinking isn't that a really dangerous game to play?

Anonymous said...

"The morality of creative thievery, like all ethical questions, is a purely personal decision based on a multitude of grey areas with attached caveats." Right, so the ethical question about whether it's OK to torture children is purely a personal decision based on a few grey areas?

As people have said earlier, there's a clear ethical divide here. Yes, no ad is original and everything has its influences. But we all know direct thieving when we see it, and it's not on.

Chris Langham (not that one) said...

"The morality of creative thievery, like all ethical questions, is a purely personal decision based on a multitude of grey areas with attached caveats." Right, so the ethical question about whether it's OK to torture children is purely a personal decision based on a few grey areas?

Yes. Sadly, yes. Otherwise no one would do it.

John said...

Someone appears to have claimed the copyright on youtube (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4). I figured the idea was to raise awareness - a vid for the youtube gen etc. wtf?

Anonymous said...

John, like most Spurs fans, you're a little off the pace here. Try reading the above comments.

Anonymous said...

Q)How many creatives does it take to rip off an idea?

A)None. The 7 low lifes involved in this latest plagiarism don't deserve the title 'creatives'.

Anonymous said...

re 10:20

I’d be careful casting aspersions on everyone involved, as it could just be the creative teams involved who have tried to pull a fast one.

It’s not exactly crime of the century but those to blame do need a kick up the arse as their lack of creativity damages the creative integrity of the industry, many teams strive for originality whilst some are just happy to climb the ladder in any way they can.

Is this a sacakable offence?

Anonymous said...

Everything's been done before... but at least Tom + Kit didn't try to hide it.

Get some work done and stop whinging about this...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

It's better than that new Levi's print, anyway...

;)

Anonymous said...

10.52

so you are saying everyone at WCRS knew it was ripped off?

Anonymous said...

How do you try to hide something that's on the internet?

Even if your superpowers extend to incredible levels of lazy thievery, distracting everyone who wants to view the original by tipping a hot mochaccino into their laps, well it may be tricky even for seven guys.

Lunar BBDO said...

Fuck. 164 has been and gone.

I'll predict this one passes 200, unless Scamp's new tip of the day involves Natalie Portman and a tub of Swarfega.

Anonymous said...

Think the bottom line is if you are going to steal an idea from the internet at least try and make it a bit different or better.

Not just copy it.

Anonymous said...

The stupid thing is, it sounds like the guy who made the original would have been reasonable about allowing them to do something similar if they'd only asked him.

Doing it behind his back without so much as an email is what makes this really shitty.

Anonymous said...

I think if you don't include a credit or footnote or slightest acknowledgement anywhere in the ad or website or accompanying press release to point towards the original source, then that amounts to 'trying to hide it'.

I have no problem with creatives directly lifting other stuff, as long as it works (which this ad does) and as long as you do the decent thing and acknowledge the source (which this ad doesn't). It's pretty simple - can't we all agree on it?

Anonymous said...

wonder if anyone from WCRS has read any of this...wonder if they care?

Anonymous said...

Think you probably should do more than just acknowledge them. You should pay them as well.

Arguing that you shouldn't have to pay for ideas is pretty dangerous territory for an ad agency to be in.

Anonymous said...

WCRS - A brand's worst friend

Anonymous said...

Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again.

Anonymous said...

this is like me claiming I wrote the lord of the rings, decided to coomit it to film and now want an oscar when in fact all I did was make a DVD copy of the original I rented from Blockbuster.

If I did indeed do this then naturally I'd feel like a prize tit, which maybe the WCRS peeps do. I can't believe they've actually credited "creative" people with this work.

That said I think the ad will create a buzz and raise awareness amongst the sheep.

Anonymous said...

I really want WCRS to come out and say something about this. I want to know what their defence is.

Anonymous said...

Here here! WCRS if you're reading, stop being cowards and speak up!

Anonymous said...

Campaign are on the case with this story, so hopefully they'll call WCRS and get a quote.

To echo someone else's question, though - is this a sackable offence?

Probably depends whether the team made the other employees and the client aware of the rip-off. If everyone was under the impression that the whole thing was the team's idea, then I'd hope it'd be sackable.

siscu said...

It,s done. May 2007


http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=5528311924791770990&hl=es

stephen fry said...

I don't think this is a Black Swan. It may have high impact, but for the wrong reasons, and it's all been wearily predictable and not in the least unexpected.

Perhaps more of a lame duck (tee hee).

Anonymous said...

what's scary is that there are still people on here saying it's fair play to lift something and stick a strapline on it

Anonymous said...

Someone should create an TV version of this:

http://www.coloribus.com/admirror/

What d'ya know, check out the 'Gaze' section...

john dodds said...

I wonder were any of the creatives at Ideo's Big Wednesday event at end of last year when the original was shown?

Anonymous said...

Come on, someone must know someone at WCRS (or Maccy Dees where the team are probably working now).

Get this blog link over and lets see what they have to say for themselves?

Anonymous said...

Cowards.

Anonymous said...

What they have to say fro themselves?

Probably just "Do you want frys with that sir?"

Anonymous said...

Yeah they're prob working in McDonalds....undercover Burger King spies hired to steal recipes

Anonymous said...

...and the winners are 1.37 & 1.39

scamp readers.. dont hate the playas, hate the game.

Anonymous said...

WCRS have finally had their say: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/790233/WCRS-defends-video-against-copyright-accusation/

But all they've commented on is the copyright. They haven't said one word about the blatant stealing.

Big cd with a big cock said...

Come on, let's all make an agreement:

Anyone senior enough to get on juries should not vote for this piece of shit.

If you agree, say 'I' and raise your hand in the air.

Juniors, just sit quietly while the big boys sort it out.

Anonymous said...

he said "ok we got caught out, we shall hang our heads in shame, we felt 1999 was far enough back to be able to steal an idea from and not get found out. we would like to apologise to everyone for our Unacceptable behaviour"

kate moss said...

Ooh...ouch...eeeh

Waking up from a three-dayer always gives me cramp in the fiddle-dee-dee.

Now what's going on here?

I often fail to notice stuff when I'm watching eight people tossing and there's balls flying through the air.

I once had sex with a black team. The Harlem Globetrotters I think it was. Or it might have been the Jamaican bobsleigh team, but who would remember a thing like that?

And anyway, last Monday seems so long ago.

Anonymous said...

Let's face it - this ad won't win anything now. WCRS should save the entry fee money and put it towards paying the guy who owns the copyright

the agency IT guy said...

There are not many statistics available for the number of videos on YouTube.

But in July 2006, they (YouTube) revealed that more than 100 million videos were being watched every day, and 2.5 billion videos were watched in June 2006. 50,000 videos were being added per day in May 2006, and this increased to 65,000 by July. Strange IT guy stats assside, no wonder these poor guys at WCRS have been accused of nicking a film, its just probability coming into play, that eventually one idea will be repeated totally innocently.

I get the feeling I may be alone in my theory here.

Also does anyone think that having lower case 'it' in 'the agency it guy' makes me fit in more with you creative guys? changed it for today to add a little gravitas.

Anonymous said...

Don't mind the lower case i.
But you should definitely put an upper case T in front of it and F off.

Anonymous said...

As a producer i have come to expect certain things from certain creatives.

What really dissapoints me is that someone as talented as Chris Palmer would get involved in something so unoriginal, why, just why?

Anonymous said...

200! It's like The Superficial, only with fewer references to Britney Spears' insanity and Hayden Panettiere's fuckability.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking of persusing YouTube for the rest of the day. I'm gonna find a random few non-copyright clips. I'll stick some client logo on the end of them. And call myself a creative genuis. Cut-and-paste creativity. Love it.

Anonymous said...

I’m still curios why their BBH stay was cut short?

Did they breach a copyright there?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 229   Newer› Newest»