We've obliged the ad agency involved and removed the spec ads for a brand of correction fluid which initially were sent in and posted as live work. Despite clearly marking the ads as spec and pixelllating away the trademark and removing the correction fluids brand name everywhere, the client and ad agency felt that the whole thing needed to be removed, the whole post and all the comments.
The posts have been edited thusly:
The original post - Correction Fluid Print no longer contains the images.
The update February 27 where the brands headquarters asked us to remove the ads doesn't mention the brands name (and never did). We obliged then by pixellating the trademark.
The update march 1 Correction fluid ads that never were we explain that on the ad agencies request we've removed [the ad agencies] name and the brand name everywhere.
And now as a final nail in the coffin, we've removed three images in the original post, and edited adgrunts comments. The images submitted as real work by creatives a little too trigger happy to get their names out.
The Creative Director of the agency explains their reasoning behind this request asking us to remove published content, as correcting it wasn't strong enough: Last Friday we were talking with the people in NY and the best way to repair our mistake is removing the ads: the client never approved this material, the management of the agency neither...
[cut]
I appreciate all your help on this and your advise, but for us is urgent to remove all, inclusive the comments on which [brand name] is mentioned."
This means I've even edited comments on this website to remove the brand name. Yes this is a first, never done that before. They might make correction fluid, but this is one helluva mess if you ask me.
I advised against removing things, correcting things is what a blog-type website does best, and removing things is usually a sure-fire way of making the images reappear elsewhere quick as a flash. Hopefully, this is so old by now that people won't care. Apologies to adgrunts who's comments I had to edit. I've clearly marked any changes made with square brackets.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
WHAT THE FUCK BIC WITE-OUT!?
Dumbasses.
- reply
PermalinkIt's like they made you corrective fluid ad-rag. How on-brand!
- reply
Permalinksometimes I wish I still had that "score +1, funny" rating system on the comments dude.
- reply
PermalinkKudos to them. At least they won't be entering it as 'real' work into Cannes and Lurzers like many agencies do.
- reply
PermalinkSo we can't use the brand name at all? Clearly they are in a bickering mood. So I pledge, as sure as my bichon frise needs a bicarb, that I will refrain from flexing my biceps on this one.
- reply
PermalinkThe ads were already clearly labelled SPEC WORK and would never have survived Cannes or the likes. Forcing a trade publication to remove work when they already posted two corrections is fucked up.
- reply
PermalinkTheir reaction is a bit retarded.
But I totally understand they're scared shitless about losing the (THE BRAND NAME THAT MUST NOT BE MENTIONED) account over something so stupid.
I wanna know what happened to the creative team that made the ads for (THE BRAND NAME THAT MUST NOT BE MENTIONED) in the first place .
Fired?
Beaten behind the shed with a plank?
Working on shelf talkers?
- reply
PermalinkAsking to remove the brand name even in the comments is not right. As I understand the server of Adland is physically stationed on Danish soil and therefore it's Danish laws that the site should be under. Asking to remove or edit comments is no more than to violate the right of free speech. They can ask to remove ads and the logo but they don't own the name used in commenting by people reading. This is just a stupid question of people ignorant to democratic rights and laws of Denmark.
- reply
PermalinkEven if they did they wouldn't have stood a chance. ;)
- reply
PermalinkComing from THE COMPANY WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS which is headquartered in the "Land of the Free"...it's even more ironic.
- reply
PermalinkI agree with Plywood - what are the team who did these ads doing now?
This was such a non-story at the start, the ads were shown here and someone even called them "lazy creative", and nobody really cared.
Then (THE BRAND NAME THAT MUST NOT BE MENTIONED) probably got their knickers in a twist as the ads could easily be found when searching on (THE BRAND NAME THAT MUST NOT BE MENTIONED) as Adland has superior google-staying power, so they pressured the wordwide agency to do something about it. The worldwide agency pressured the small south american local, and the local had to put their head to the chopping board here. I understand that they have to appease their client but now they turned a non-story into a story. Big mistake.
Unless they wanted that to happen. Like those "banned" virals we've seen before. Someone needs to teach big brands blog-PR. Asking to have things removed is like lighting a fire, it'll just get out of control.
I've seen these ads all over flickr now, and had them sent to me via email. They're "meh", but now all over the place.
- reply
Permalink