Can you spot any similarity in the ads above?
How far can we borrow an idea or artwork before being labelled as a "copycat"?
Charles Wong, managing director for Contract Advertising says his agency rolled out a campaign (First ad on top) for Novartis' Ca-C product on 17 October last year in local newspapers and magazines.
Six months later on May 2009, Shizuoka Gastroenterology launched a print ad to promote its health product in Apple Daily and Oriental Daily featuring local celebrity Eric Tsang (pictured with drum) that Wong says looks "very similar" to Contract's artwork or simply a "layout copycat".
Wong says, "The resemblance is pretty amazing!We think it's a compliment to us but it's funny how 90% of the graphics have been used". Do you agree the ads are strikingly similar or a clever case of adaptation?
Wong adds, "Hey, we all know business is very tough these days but I suppose brands should certainly invest a bit to differentiate themselves in the market!"
It seems there isn't really an organisation locally that frustrated creatives like Wong could go to complain about such matters.
Tony Hon, managing director for Turn Creative says there's a lot of grey areas when it comes to proving if a work is 100% original as nobody really owns the ideas to an art direction or key visuals. If legal action is taken against copycat ads, he believes the lawyers will be the ones that stand to gain from this.
However, he does not think there are more cases of copycats due to the economic meltdown as such look alike executions do appear from time to time.
Copyright infringement or in the context of an increasingly digital world, piracy has become rampant particularly for those players that have got their fingers burnt.
Is there anything the industry could do anything about especially when consumers are nonchalant to such practices?
7 comments:
they're both crap ads!
i've seen loads of copycats at award shows but i don't think i've seen any in this category of ads!
Al about the pictures.
If anything, this rather shallow glimpse into the world of what you refer to as 'creativity' in advertising (the examples given are, lets face it, not) serves only to highlight the severely misguided state of the industry and it's commentators.
First of all, you seem to be confusing artwork / visuals with ideas. These are merely the execution on ideas. Everyone seems to forget this, thereby showing how little they know about 'creativity' and advertising.
It's very easy to look at two ads and say, "Wow! They look the same. That's a copy!" Fine - the examples given looked the same. But what's the thinking behind the ads? On a daily basis the strategy, positioning and thinking behind ads are regurgitated. Oh, so this would seem to be fine, because they don't look the same. The important stuff is overlooked, goes on behind the scenes. What we can't see and don't care about doesn't matter and won't hurt - as long as we don't stir things up too much. Yes, that's right Adeline. Perhaps if you'd delved a little deeper, maybe challenged a perception or two, you'd have arrived at the conclusion that people don't care about this important stuff - they're almost unaware of it - they just like sensationalizing what's on the surface. Like when one retail ad looks a bit like another.
I, for one, could not care less if one nasty retail ad looks like another nasty retail ad. As Charles Wong points out, the latter will have no differentiation in the market, and he is probably very happy with the PR he's getting as the 'wronged agency'. In short, it's obviously a stupid thing to do, and the offending agency will not gain by it. End of (rather boring) story.
The deeper issue unwittingly raised by your article is the fact that people think that 'creativity' is measured in visuals. It shows how close they are prepared to look (not very), and a short attention span - forgivable in a consumer, not in an industry member. These days, 'Creative' is a slutty little word - compulsory in media owners' descriptions of their run-of-the-mill poster sites, floor stickers and bus sides. 'Creative' is what clients say they want from their agencies, when all they insist on is a shelf wobbler with sixteen propositions on it. 'Creative' is what agencies say they are, in response to these clients and potential clients, as they struggle past them desperately with pro-active, pro-bono work (the sad refuge for the only hint of creativity in our regions' industry) that might just pick up at Cannes if there's enough of your mates on the jury. (Award shows and 'creativity' are an entirely different can of worms).
'Creativity' is not simply the ability to make an ad. 'Creativity' is the special, the unique, the never before seen. Ad agency MD's, suits, media buyers, media owners, many creatives even, use the word freely and have no idea whatsoever about what is happening in the real world of 'creativity'. Show them a UK Honda ad, or a Uniqlo website, and they'll look at you like you've lost your mind. At the end of the day, if anything is sold these days, you can bet that someone has referred to it as 'creative' merely because of this meagre achievement. It's denial. A shared denial. Most people in the industry don't know and don't care what's 'creative' - only a few 'crazy' individuals in the creative department who end up getting frustrated and are seen as 'awkward' by the majority but are inevitably the ones who provide the agencies' creative credentials when it comes to showing off the awards. They are the crazy ones (get the reference Adeline? I really hope so. If not I suggest you Google it).
continued...
'Creativity' and the proper understanding of the word is severely lacking everywhere in our industry - from the ads themselves, to the insights and discussion around them.
The article not only fails to understand 'creativity', the industry itself, or the various motivations of those who work in it, it also fails to provide any kind of insight into why the given copycat example may have happened or why it happens elsewhere. Instead, it merely focusses on what happened - the scandal angle. Something reminiscent of the worst tabloid rags, and something we have come to expect from the good folk at Marketing.
Regards.
To Anonymous,
I suppose you work in advertising and feel very strongly how “creativity” has been “misinterpreted” or “superficially glazed” by an industry commentator. I appreciate the comments you made and the high expectations you would expect from Marketing magazine - to reiterate no we are not a ‘trashy tabloid rag’ and the folks here seek to find out and dig into the underlying issues faced by the industry.
You have to agree with me that “creativity” is a loaded term and it means different things to different people and could be used loosely to achieve one’s personal objectives. Your definition of creativity as you have outlined may sometimes be at odds with what a typical client would seek to achieve first – impacting the bottom line and perhaps one of the biggest frustrations people like you in the creative industry face. Sure it’s not a recent phenomenon but how are people in the industry dealing with this? You’ve pointed out some valid criticisms that require a more in-depth exploration into the whole topic of creativity here in Hong Kong.
Thank you for your feedback because it’s only through conversations like this that we know what gets our readers hot under the collar and how Marketing can continue to engage and inform valuable readers like you.
Sincerely,
Adaline Lau
Adaline.
I'm Ross. I wrote the above.
I owe you several apologies.
First, for spelling your name incorrectly. Several times. Truly unforgivable.
Second, for the forcefulness of my remarks. As is obvious, and as as you noted, 'hot under the collar' is an apt description. A reason, but not an excuse, for my harsh comments.
I stand by my criticism and points made, but accept that I could have presented them in a more mature manner.
It's all very well to spout forth about creativity and ideas in communication, but to do it without thinking if this is the best way to communicate those opinions is, I realise, a little bit silly. A few words I could have perhaps done without - tabloid rags, for example. Uncalled for.
Perhaps the execution of these particular ideas could have been thought out a little better.
I very much appreciate your reply, and regret any offence.
sincerely
Does anyone see a similarity between the City of Dreams model and this ad for Impanema shoes from 2007? http://www.fabsugar.com/638419
Or how The Latitude and City of Dreams have very similar logos... very strange...
Flaterry, I guess.
Post a Comment