P&G’s Big Promotion “Bombs” in Brazil

People today are a little too jumpy for their own good. It doesn’t help that we’ve got “privacy” scanners and crazy color-coded terrorists threats (how do they pick the most threatening color anyway?) I mean, I can understand the craziness when we’re being taught by the media to fear everything and everyone. Think about the last time you were at the airport, how many times did you hear the announcement that alert security to any abandoned bags or boxes? So when P&G started up a new promotion this past week that entailed leaving large wooden locked crates in the middle of public areas, people (and the police) didn’t respond too kindly.

According to AdAge, “The suspect crates were intended to be a teaser promotion for P&G's biggest-ever sweepstakes in Brazil, called ‘P&G Faustão's Airplane.’” (Article Link) As part of the promotion, prizes were described to fill up an airplane, so the promotion team though the image of air-dropped crates would help the public connect the boxes with the promotion.

Well, it didn’t work. The bomb squad was called in to two different locked crates, opened both crates and announced that nothing was in the boxes.

Maybe if the boxes had a parachute attached to them somewhere nearby (like a real air-dropped package) or if there was a P&G logo somewhere. Or maybe they could have contacted the right people to give the authorities a heads up.

That’s where P&G’s promotions team made a big boo-boo. Apparently there were multiple promotion teams hired to carry out this event. One of the teams, NewStyle even tried to get a permit, but guess what, they were denied. Imagine that! Can’t imagine why a lone, locked-wooden box would invoke the fear of thousands of people?

Not that it stopped the team, they went ahead with the promotion anyway. Forget any ethical codes code of honesty, integrity, and “do no harm”.

I just love how some people don’t take the time to think something through, and the impact that it can have. When you start the process of planning an ad, or a promotion, or even a press release, you’ve got to keep in mind current events that can impact your campaign (like in this case freaking everyone out).

Update: P&G has pulled the locked-box stunt for now, maybe next time they’ll think a little longer about and won’t have their promotions mistaken for a terrorist device.

Copying vs. Copyrighted

 Wouldn’t it be great if we could all just make up our own rules? No, I will not eat ice cream with a spoon, I’m eating it with fork! Take that Miss Manners!  Sounds silly right? Well what about this Cook’s Source nightmare? I mean I understand that the world of blogging is kind of blurry when it comes to legal precedence and black and white rules, but anyone with half a brain knows that you don’t just “lift” words and assume that you can have your way with them. Hello! Ever heard of a copyright or plagiarism?

Apparently the editor at Cook’s Source hasn’t, and what’s even more entertaining is that she deems herself the Queen of Online Law.  Long story short, this magazine lifted a story from another blogger, Monica Gaudio (known as illadore), changed up a few words, and printed the revised story in their magazine without the consent or even the knowledge of the writer.

When confronted about their obviously lack of know-how, they said “But honestly Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it!” (illadore’s blog) Wow. That’s high class right there. Looks to me like the editor here is going with the sheep logic, as in, well everything is doing it so we’re joining the pack of other ignoramus out there.

So to Cook’s Source credit, is the internet “public domain”? That one is up for debate, but blogs and the Internet are not the same thing, and since blogs can be viewed as literary works, then yes they are copyrighted and not public domain. So hmm, sorry Cook’s Source, you blew that one.

All I know is that if I tried to pull that in my journalism classes, I’d probably have to start looking for a new major, because I’d definitely be kicked out for violating copyright laws and being an idiot.

However, in the end it looks like Cook’s Source figured out that if you upset enough people, eventually you have to do the right thing. On the home page of their website cooksource.com, the magazine apparently tries to make itself look like the victim, but ultimately they did apologize to Monica.

Ultimately though, the responsibility of attributing sources and giving credit where credit is due is the writer’s. Always check your work. Always correctly attribute a source. Even if you feel the need to making something “better”, if the idea isn’t yours, then give credit.

Let's "Agree" to Disagree

So finally the dust is starting to settle on this Chevron fake ad campaign fiasco, but I must say that I’ve really enjoyed this one. For those who’ve been living under a rock (or watching Fox news… ouch! sorry), Chevron’s new advertising campaign was recently hijacked by a watchdog group called the Yes Men, who did a bang up job of not only fooling the public (which really isn’t hard to do) but they fooled the media (which is slightly more impressive).  Quick note on the Yes Men, I personally view them as social revolutionaries, but I realize that the word “boundaries” isn’t in their vocabulary.  

Now while I’m a big fan of upsets, I can’t help but wonder how these guys are getting away with completely slamming Chevron.  Also as a journalism major, the first amendment is pretty much tattooed on the inside of my eyeballs, so it got me wondering how they’re skirting the law on this one. So after checking into this, it turns out the Yes Men don’t have completely legal tactics. The big word that comes to mind is libel, which is according to dictionary.com is “defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.” Basically this means you write something is isn’t true and pisses someone off, you’re in trouble. Libel law gets really fuzzy when it comes to commercial speech, and the fact that there is a ridiculous amount of disagreement over the scope of protection for the first amendment, when it comes to commercial libel it’s really a case by case basis. To prove libel you need things like intention, publication of the message, was it fraudulent, actual malice, and were there any losses (tangible or intangible). Individuals can sue before they die, corporations can sue as long as they can prove a loss, and it varies but just about everyone else can do it too.  Defending libel is supposed to be a little easier, with defenses like truth and using the first amendment.

So let’s take a look at what went down. Chevron starts production on a new campaign, information about the campaign gets out, and thanks to the internet, this information gets into the hands of some very sneaky, very anti-giant corporation people who aren’t big fans of Chevron. So do they just post anti-Chevron comments on their Facebook’s? No! These people actually created a fake campaign that was so brilliantly executed it fooled just about everyone and their dog. Except for Chevron, who knew, and wasn’t too thrilled. So did Yes-Men fraudulently claim to be Chevron? Uh, yes. Did Yes-Men mean for people to read these ads, turn into instant Chevron-hating zombies and never buy their products again effectively affecting their bottom line? Double yes. So let’s see, that’s intention to cause harm and malice right there. But wait, this is where it gets tricky. Did Chevron lie? Did they say anything that wasn’t based on factual evidence? Are the Yes-Men and similar groups using the first amendment as a shield to hide behind? Hmm, let’s see what the court room of public opinion thinks.

I found this great video called “Chevron thinks we’re stupid”, which I find very entertaining, but from the get go, they make it very clear that it’s satirical. Now check out this “Chevron” ad from Yes-Men’s campaign “We Agree”. If you didn’t already know that it was a fake, how would you react to it? Would you think, “wow Chevron’s really stepping out there?”

Not wanting to miss out on a piece of the action, Ad Age posted an article online that was aimed at companies for things they should keep in mind should they be “Yes-Men’d”, like having a back-up plan, monitoring for “anti-you” information, and  not overacting but acting quickly. But you’ll notice that “have ethical business practices so you don’t get caught” isn’t listed on there. While Chevron may in fact be slowly killing our planet, the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove that their statements are true, and that their speech is worth protecting. So will Chevron sue Yes-Men? If it weren’t the Yes-Men, they’d probably SLAPP the libelers first, (not physically, but I’m sure they’d like to do that too), which is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. This is basically when a corporation bullies someone into a corner and buries them under 300 years’ worth of paperwork, so that they either can’t defend themselves or they call it quits. This scare tactic usually works, but for the Yes-Men, I don’t think it’ll do any good.

Ultimately I believe that the Yes-Men’s choice to publish these ads was premeditated, thought out, well planned, and brilliantly executed. It was also fraudulent, sneaky, and in the end doesn’t really do a whole lot for the notion of free speech. The hijacked “We Agree” campaign was executed in a completely unethical way, but the thing is, I really don’t think the Yes-Men care if their decisions are ethical. I think the whole point of their actions was to stir things up and get people talking about big issues, I just think that they stirred the pot a little too much and ended up with some questions they might not want to answer.

What do you think?