Anomalousness

by Anomaly London 
« Back to blog

Post Endorsement

The advertising industry spends as much time on sites like YouTube and Vimeo looking for inspiration as they do complaining about how lazy everyone has become because of it. There are countless examples of ads that have clearly ripped off existing content, but the discussion has mainly been concerned with whether it's OK or not to 'be inspired' by such content, or if 'stealing' is just creativity by another name.

Since we find solving problems more intriguing than just discussing what causes them, we felt honour-bound to spend some time thinking about this. Is there a way to acknowledge the original work of the artists? To create more relevant communications for our brands or our those of our clients? To spend less money on redoing something that already has been done, and share the love with the original creators?

In the video above, it is impossible not to think about Nintendo, about the hours you've spent with Tetris, with the classic soundtrack in your ears and that heavy Gameboy in your hands. This animation is advertising Nintendo whether the creator likes it or not. Traditionally some creatives working on Nintendo would see that the clip had been viewed 125 000 times and think that redoing it would be an excellent idea because it's already been proven to work.

But what if we could let the clip be as it is: relevant, engaging and original, and then endorse it by paying the animator for the rights and by sponsoring his Vimeo page? We would brand the page rather than smack a logo on the end of the clip (or making a worse version). By doing this we would support creative people, we would endorse content relevant to the brand and we get content that has already been proven to have a 'viral' effect.

What do you think?

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments (7)

Nov 02, 2009
waldemarwegelin said...
Yes, spot on.
Nov 02, 2009
Daniel said...
Well put and exactly what I think; it would give brands the holy grail of viral without costing a fortune.

However, it wouldn't work where creatives have simply ripped off Youtube videos for their own means where the subject is totally at odds with the brand/product in question: for example these two ads, which have really got my goat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFifAP0TeQ4
versus the inspiration...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN_r9joWNXQ

and this total piece of crap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t83et2J51Rw

...and this is most often the case - I think the ad in your example is a rarity, unless we include this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v31qxrXsxv0

Nov 02, 2009
I'm with you man, i would love it. But the problem is not the creativity, the agency or us. The problem is Nintendo and all the burocratic brands crap.
The ppl at marketing NEED to justify their existence. They need the "move this" "put that" and of course, the final decision on the hands of the boss's wife to eat.
Nov 03, 2009
I totally agree. "branded entertainment" so often means "worse entertainment" (my latest blog post has a short pov on that) and I think that brands forget that there is great content out there that consumers can freely enjoy that is the real competition for attention not just other ads.

Love the examples that Daniel posted. I can't help feeling that the branded versions are worse and not because they are now ads for brands, but because in recreating the content and the resulting contrivance, what was authentic, fresh and engaging has been lost....

Nov 03, 2009
Will said...
As with all of these things - there is a line.

For example, I don't get hacked off with things like T-Mobile's flashmob, because as far as i'm concerned, it's not something which is 'owned' by the creator.

I do get annoyed when it's an obvious set piece lift, and no cash was paid to the creator. For example, I don't know whether Land Rover paid the Pen project for their obvious lift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqGblWU-sq4).

You don't tend to get people bleating about David Letterman and Sony for Balls, and that's because it wasn't precisely the same thing; it was inspired by, not ripped off. And, for ads which are a blatant ripoff, if they acknowledge their source, I don't have a problem with it either.

Nov 03, 2009
Anomaly London said...
Completely agree with the inspiration versus straight up ripping off, but if you consider the example you mention Will; what would've felt more relevant, genuine and real and what would've been the cheapest and the most effective?

Endorsing Taijin Takeuchi's stop motion movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmkLlVzUBn4

Or making "The PEN Story" from scratch, less rooted in the creative community and actually pissing quite a few in the target audience off by not crediting Taijin as a source of inspiration at first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Et7UQh1tg

Nov 03, 2009
Will said...
You creative nerd, you. Didn't realise it was there first. Wow.

Leave a comment...

 
Got an account with one of these? Login here, or just enter your comment below.
Posterous-login    Connect    twitter