Who's messing with your trademarks, today?

 
 

Who's messing with your trademarks, today?

Oi, what a week to miss reading Adcritic's elert. Move over user-created ads, now there's creative-created ads where the creatives even run the stuff without ever contacting the client. double-u-tee-eff?

It's Exit3a.com that are behind the greenpeace ad with the line: "Who's fucking your mother, today?" That comma, sucks.
(see ads inside)

Greenpeace will have to - at the very least - send a sternly worded letter to Exit3a to protect their trademark. And while I understand the urge to spec, and the urge to spec for a good cause specifically, I don't understand why do such a rubbish job, and run the ads without contacting the client.

From Adcritic's elert.

Saying Your Piece for Greenpeace
Writer Tom Mullen and AD Jonah Hughes of freelance agency Exit3a (Exit3a.com) are planning to distribute these posters at the Earth Day celebration in Washington, D.C. on April 22. Greenpeace, however, hasn't been informed. Is that a problem? "It's probably not legal, but there's too much paperwork, meetings and phone calls involved to get the campaign approved in time for Earth Day," Mullen says. "I figure Greenpeace is too busy getting sued by conglomerates to bother suing a few people who are trying to promote the cause. They can always officially deny the vulgarity." What if they wanted to officially deny the curious comma before "today"? "It's there to elicit a pause," says Mullen. "The comma gives you pause to think about the numerous ways the Earth is being damaged."

All ye creatives and planners and even execs who read adland, who here hasn't at one point or another done spec for Greenpeace? Yeah. Exactly. Yours was better.

Adland: 

Comments

Swap the Greenpeace logo with a Durex or Trojan logo and tweak the copy a tad, and you cover the other default spec category. Actually, the ads would be better that way, i think.

I doubt Greenpeace would mind. For orgs like them and PETA, any PR is good PR.

Depends on what the goal with them really was, if it was to make you guys famous
they did an excellent job.

Those ads are bad because they seem to be the first idea. The thought might not be wrong, but the tone is hamfisted instead of engaging. What is the call to action here? How can the reader help? Why should they care?

What to do about apathy? Who knows? Who cares?

Astute observation and critique. The first idea we had was ‘mother’. The second idea that popped into our heads was ‘oil rigs’. We planned to round out the campaign with a third but everything we thought sucked even more than the two we did.

Hey, so has Greenpeace been in touch with you yet? It would fun to hear what they think!

Not a peep. We’ve heard only negativity from consumers. Maybe 3 out of 100 people like the ads so, we trashed them. Oops. Recycled them. We’re working on another pro-bono campaign. This time for a Steak House, that sells vegetarian food.

the sarcasm? hyperbole...? irony..? Ah, I know bullshit here is killing me. Go play somewhere else kids.

Add new comment

Top