Category: Advertising

AdlandTV Schools GoldieBlox

Adland.TV pulls no punches with its headline Goldieblox:  erasing the line between “disruptive” and “douchebaggery.”  Not only does the article that follows blast the toy company for its failed attempted to use legal controversy to gin up a little pre-Christmas marketing, it also justifiably takes aim at the overvaluation of the notion of disruptiveness in these volatile days.  Yes, we all understand that throughout history, real disruption through technological, or even philosophical, transformation will invariably trample those stranded in old paradigms as it simultaneously seeds new prosperity for those born into, or able to adapt to, the new.  That said, is every entrepreneur out there legitimately disruptive, or is this just one of the buzzwords of our times the way edgy was in the early 90s?  Not everything new is disruptive, and to the the author of this post’s point GoldieBlox’s is being disruptive not in the historical sense so much as in that way that used to get your parents called in to talk to the teacher.

“It takes a special kind of hubris to so sincerely believe that rules are there to be broken and that controversy can be tamed to sell [product]. It’s advertising hubris.”
Read more at http://adland.tv/adnews/goldieblox-erasing-line-between-disruptive-and-douchebaggery/1385572187#Yw423ExgpycHH1Xe.99

GoldieBlox Sues Beastie Boys

[NOTE:  Since publishing this post, GoldieBlox removed access to its original video and has replaced it with a generic version absent any reference to the Beastie Boys song.]

I’d seen this video make the rounds on Facebook but didn’t know that it was at the heart of a new controversy regarding copyrights and fair use.  A promo for the innovative toy-making startup GoldieBlox, the video traces the path of an ingenious Rube Goldberg construct made of everyday household items and kids’ toys as the lyrics promote empowerment for girls.  All good except for one little problem:  the song is in fact “Girls” by the Beastie Boys, a band that determined in its earliest days not to allow commercial use of its works.  Atypically, though, the band wasn’t the first to file suit or even send a cease and desist letter.  To the contrary, as soon as the band made an inquiry into the use of its song, GoldieBlox sued them claiming fair use on the grounds that the video is parody.

I have two observations:

First, if the case were to go to court, it could be a big deal.  Parody or not, the spirit of fair use in this sense is meant for people or entities whose purpose is to create parody itself in the form of entertainment, not for producing commercials that sell products or promote brands.  Regardless of GoldieBlox’s noble mission to empower young girls, there’s no gray area here; this is a commercial for a company, and we cannot allow fair use to include any company simply boosting creative works at will.  Finding in GoldieBlock’s favor would be precedent-setting.  If that company can use a  Beastie Boys song without permission, then what’s to stop Koch Industries from rewriting the lyrics to “Imagine” for a brand identity video that also promotes the Koch Brothers’ social and political views?  It would just be parody of Lennon’s pro-communist song, right?

The second observation I have is a creative one.  The video is so brilliant, the message so strong, and the Rube Goldberg contraption so complex and fun to watch that I insist the video would be as effective and readily shared without actually using the Beastie Boys’ “Girls.”  For one thing, a parody of the original, misogynistic lyrics only resonates with a viewer who knows the source; and most parents of young children are probably a decade or so too young to have a lot of Beastie Boys in their subconsciouses.  Hell, I went to tiny little Bard College with Adam Yauch, and I wouldn’t have known this video was based on “Girls,” if I hadn’t read about it. But I still would share the video as a cool piece for its many virtues.

It can be hard to know why creative teams or executives determine that a commercial production needs to be based on some existing cultural reference.  Sometimes it’s essential to the concept and the message, sometimes it’s a misjudgment, sometimes it’s laziness, and sometimes it’s just ego.  One possibility in this particular case, given how quick GoldieBlox moved to sue the band, is that the company wanted to draw fire from the Beastie Boys, which if nothing else, would generate free publicity and more views of the video.  I hope this wasn’t part of the calculus; I like what the GoldieBlox brand wants to be for young girls and would hate to see the company act like old boys.

ADDENDUM:  Read Felix Salmon from Reuters.  Silicon Valley company being “disruptive” as  SOP and having nothing ultimately to do with the Beastie Boys or the rights of artists?  Could be.  I would also recommend Chris Castle’s piece on the subject and the issue of PR by Lawsuit (just in time for Black Friday!)

POST SCRIPT 7:00p EST: And then . . .the open letter apology from GoldieBlox that brings to mind the word cloying, particularly the “we’re just little, please don’t hurt us” implication considering the Beastie Boys had only made inquiries. It’s been interesting and encouraging to note that as this story has unfolded throughout the day, public sentiment seems to favor the Beastie Boys in this case.  Through all the mystifying nonsense about copyright these days, people seem to believe in the fundamental principle that creators do have a right to control the use of their works.

Playing Pirate with Chiat/Day

In my follow-up about Chiat/Day and the “Pirate Square” campaign, I suggested that the agency’s decision to produce the work was motivated by an opportunity to promote the Chiat/Day brand itself in a big way and for free.  And the more I look at the whole business, the more I’m convinced this is what happened.  According to this article in Billboard, John Ocean and Eric Mendelsohn of Ghost Beach were offered the valuable Times Square space by landlord American Eagle Outfitters as at least partial payment for use of one of the band’s songs in an AEO commercial.  The duo states that addressing piracy was their idea and that they took the whole thing to TBWAChiat/Day, who developed the campaign for free.  I think the tactical decision was that the agency would naturally do the work pro bono because no matter what happens for Ghost Beach or American Eagle Outfitters, the entire campaign promotes Chiat/Day, including any negative press, because “pirate culture” is at the core of the agency’s brand.  The source of this cultural identity is attributed to an aphorism by Jay Chiat, supposedly said shortly after the 1968 founding that, “Its better to be the pirate than the Navy.”  It occurred to me, though, that the contemporary agency’s claim that the proverbial pirate flag has been flying ever since Chiat uttered these words in the late ‘60s might be what we call truth in advertising.

Neither my own father nor his colleagues, who were with either Chiat or Day before the merger, has any recollection of a pirate motif; and there is no mention of the theme in the book Chiat/Day: The First 20 Years.  Stevan Alburty, who began working at the agency in 1977 and worked in the New York office until 1994, says he believes the pirate branding came about sometime in the 1990s after he left, which seems about right with regard to pop culture and the dawn of the digital age.  Alburty also hosts a blog called Jay/Day, which is frequented by former employees of the agency, so you’d think someone might remember what the agency calls its mantra, if it were indeed a mantra dating back to the early days of the business.  And here’s the kicker:  an anonymous but reliable source traceable through my personal, family connections to this particular agency says that the quote about being the pirate comes from Steve Jobs and that the entire pirate ethos, including the flag, originates from within the C/D creative team that worked on the Apple account. In fact, a quick search for quotes does attribute to Steve Jobs the words “It’s better to be a pirate than join the Navy.” And I think we all know what Jobs meant when we look at Apple design relative to the rest of the computer industry.

So, why bring this up at all?  Why out Chiat/Day on this relatively harmless bit of revisionist history?  I’m not interested in petty gotchas, and as I said in the previous post, the pirate theme is a perfectly good choice for branding a long tradition of pushing creative boundaries and producing some brilliant work.  So what if the story takes a little license with the truth?  And what has it got to do with Times Square and the flap over the ArtistsvsArtists campaign?

Just this:

It’s okay to want to do what all the cool kids are doing, and Chiat/Day has plenty of street cred when it comes to advertising cool; but it can be a dangerous business when the cool kid starts to believe his own bullshit and takes his act too seriously.  As attractive as this opportunity must have been, its execution implies that the leadership at TBWAChiat/Day New York either don’t get that piracy of creative works is a serious and complex business, or they don’t care.  It makes me think of a story in which a guy dressed as a raffish pirate for a costume party gets knocked on the head and wakes up at the right hand of Edward Teach (Blackbeard) on the day the real-life pirate is threatening to hang men, women, and children unless their native township paid a ransom for their lives. Yeah, it’s a very Brady plot, but you get the idea about the contrast between myth and history, right? It’s okay to play pirate as long as you remember what is and is not a game.

Treating online piracy as a progressive business model emphasizes unfounded, techno-utipian ideas over the hard-won history of individual, creative achievement.  I and others believe the endgame can be a lasting, damaging effect on a system that has given creative people autonomous power to author great works, including the ground-breaking advertising of Chiat/Day, who is a beneficiary of this system in so many ways.  This whole  “Pirate Square” story is rife with irony, including the quote boosted from Jobs and attributed to Chiat that seeds a brand message, which leads to this Orwellian campaign brought to you by the same agency that once produced the award-winning TV spot for Apple in 1984 based on 1984.  But I think the real irony is this:  by choosing to play pirate with live ammo on the high-tech seas, the frigate Chiat/Day enabled this humble sailor to come broadside to its entire brand identity and blow a pretty big hole through its hull.

ADDENDUM:  With regard to motives and understanding who benefits, it’s worth noting that according to data published on The Trichordist, the band Ghost Beach did not appear to get much out of this deal.  This is consistent with what many of us see as the difference between vague promises of the digital age and tangible results that put food on the table.