Debate on the Rise: Similar Bread Ads Stir Agencies

Yeast makes bread rise. Copying advertisements makes agencies' blood levels rise. A recent online debate has begun over an ad for Qatar Airlines, as it appears to be similarly styled like an ad created for Lurpak Danish Butter. It is not the brands here at war, instead their creators are the ones from which the words are flying over the blogosphere. World-renowned agency Wieden + Kennedy London (see photo below), have stumbled upon a YouTube video depicting a recent ad for Qatar Airlines that is surprisingly alike an ad they released in March 2007. W+K London managing director, Neil Christie, first acknowledged that another agency "copied" his work on his agency's blog this past week. He offered evidence of both videos with embedded YouTube clips and directly called out to those at the other agency, Batey Singapore, through some choicely aimed words. The normally scarce to truly participate advertising blog world has blown up with comments supporting both sides of the debate, with the most commented site being the W+K London blog. Other blogs which also report this story have received increases in knowledgeable comments, as even Neil Christie, himself, has been dropping lines in defense of his statements and following many of the arguments on this topic. I was able to comment on a two of these blogs and truly dive into the online warfare with my contributions. The first blog I commented on was BusinessWeek: Brand New Day, a blog written by Marketing Editor Burt Helm and Senior Correspondent David Kiley, my submission was on the post Wieden & Kennedy Cries “Ripoff”. Another blog I contributed to was a blog that is related to AdWeek and a personal favorite of mine, AdFreak, which is created by multiple writers (see photo below). Brian Morrissey, who is not the most frequent poster to this site, yet maintains his authority with his writings for AdWeek, generated this post, titled Wieden upset by half-baked Singapore spot. I have commented directly onto each of these respected blogs and have also posted my words here below.

"Wieden & Kennedy Cries 'Ripoff'"
Comment:
Thank you for your insightful post on this recent and still developing story. I am glad you covered this event, as it is a topic that deserves more attention than it is currently receiving. The controversy at hand stems from the fact that it seems creativity may soon reach its limit and the thresholds of originality may be stretched beyond any point of return. With this thinking, nothing is original. I feel that the two advertisements portray their own unique artistic expression and though overlap is present, the two ads remain apart. This is not to say that the opinion of Wieden + Kennedy London's Neil Christie should go by the wayside. The fact that he took the time to publicly defend what he felt was an injustice to his agency's creative work shows his dedication to his career as well as his drive to express a need for change in this industry practice. I understand it is not uncommon to use similar tactics as other campaigns yet with the lack of original content being created, Mr. Christie has the right to try to hold on to what may have been his to begin with. You say in your post "most times, it is the creative director's delusion" that his or her work has been "ripped off," yet I feel that without speaking out about such incidents, whether they be true or not, would only lead to worse offenses. Perhaps Mr. Christie is doing only what others are incapable of doing (and might I add he is going to some length to do so, by commenting on blogs to defend his words).

When watching the ads, it is hard not to instantly agree with the claims of copying or even going as far as plagiarizing, due to the similarity in visuals and scripts used. It is apparent why these ads are even being compared but you simply write off Mr. Christie as having a "preposterous claim." There may be little to no way of proving him right for his complaint against the alleged agency, Batey Singapore, but it would only seem appropriate for the agency to at least acknowledge his blog post and respond accordingly. The advertising industry would benefit from a peaceful resolution to this incident but it would make further progress if Batey did, by chance, acknowledge their reuse of Wieden + Kennedy London's material. What are your feelings on the shady practices that currently go on in the advertising world? It will be interesting to see what will result from this but for the meantime I appreciate your time and work on this blog and look forward to your response.

"Wieden upset by half-baked Singapore spot"
Comment:
I would like to thank you for reporting on this controversy, as it has been a topic of much discussion throughout the advertising blogosphere. There have been many comments preceding my own on your blog, yet I feel that this story is one worthy of more acknowledgment. The issue of copying creative efforts has rung loudly throughout the advertising industry with this incident and stands as a reminder of a problem that will see no end in the near future. With all of the copyrighting and other efforts to ban such copying practices, the responsibility then falls onto the individual to stand up for one's own work. This can cause great backlash to occur as is evident from Neil Christie's call out of the agency that he felt was "bloody copying his ad" and has since proceeded with follow-up comments. The mounting pressure to be innovative in this business causes strain for creatives, especially as the ability to be "original" seems to be nearly dead. Much of what creatives do is to draw from others for inspiration and sometimes instead of viewing others' ideas and moving forward, the inspiration acquired becomes drawn too directly from its original source.

You wrote in this post "these things always perplex me. Could the breadmaking have been presented differently, or is any breadmaking a no-no?" I like your point that often agencies can hold on too tightly to the work they created and all of the gray area that coincides. In this case, at least the products being advertised are entirely different, but then again I am sure that Mr. Christie was wondering why Batey Singapore chose to depict a similar breadmaking process instead of how to make any other food item the Qatar Airlines might offer?

You also say, "the grumbling over these...tribute ads is done sotto voce. But sometimes not." However I feel it could perhaps be a good thing that Mr. Christie spoke up for his work. It should be seen as progressive by the overall industry to do what most others do not. He has set an example to follow when others may otherwise feel too timid to speak out. This can even serve to quell fears in agencies worldwide that they will be chastised for publicly protecting their ads. I would be curious to hear what you feel about this incident in more depth; especially how you think the practices of mirroring others will be affected by this powerful agency voicing their opinion on it. Thank you for your continued work on this blog as it is a favorite of mine and I look forward to more from your side of this story.