I’ll get to the legal part in a sec, relax. First, the words that suck the most in an agency this time of year. No, not, “Come in and close the door.” Agency Christmas card! That time of year when you get to show how clever you can be with the mandatory Santa, elves and/or reindeer imagery. You hear all kinds of ideas before someone has one that doesn’t suck the most. Along the way, you endure* some or all of the following madness:“What if we had an elf as Santa and we people would sit on him to get their pictures taken?”
“Can’t we just send out a card?”
“Why don’t we bring in our pets and dress them up as reindeer and take one big group shot with them.” (This is almost always suggested by the senior VP who loves her shih tzu.)
“Let’s sing carols and tape it.”
“Whatever. You guys just do what you want then.” (Almost always followed by someone quickly gathering their stuff and walking out of the room, pretending they have a meeting to go to after the art director shoots the idea down.)
“Hey, I know, Santa’s workshop!” (Followed by that silent pause as everyone waits for the dots to be connected, which never happens with The Thought Starter.)
“Maybe we could donate something to charity on behalf of clients.” (Which, is a nice thing to do actually and damn them for suggesting it because now if you neg it YOU look like the a-hole even though IT’S THE SAME IDEA THIS PERSON COMES UP WITH EVERY YEAR.)
“Whatever you want to do is cool with me.” (Usually said by the writer or art director who never look up the entire time as they doodle intently, occasionally throwing out snarky lines. Why? Because they both have 10 other projects to do and they know after this bullshit session has ended that it’s going to be them coming up with the concept.)
After all that, maybe you come up with something that most of your existing Plaid clients and vendors would find amusing, something that incorporates them in it, which they could then pass around for a quick laugh in the office. Then you go through the time and expense of shooting it all and creating the site. I mean, it’s not like you set out to do something that could be interpreted as being offensive or harassing.
Right?
*Nearly mostly all actually witnessed/heard/suggested/contemplated in brainstorms I’ve been in, but not actually/nearly/ever said by me.
Tags: Plaid
16 comments:
I was involved in the creation of this site in a minor way. Whoever sent this letter out needs to just jump off a bridge into an icy river.
Well, it appears Plaid fumbled on understanding our industry’s most basic tenet: Know Your Audience.
As an unattached observer, I think the video did cross a line. Sure, when you consider the stuff we regularly post on our respective sites and blogs, the Plaid effort may seem tame – and even lame (have to admit I only watched a few minutes). But consider the environments this video invaded. There are, after all, companies that restrict employee online access. This video could have inadvertently gotten someone into trouble at the office. Minimally, it should have been accompanied by the old NSFW (and perhaps it was).
Who can say what motivated the two reactions. Granted, the responses were taken to pretty extreme levels. But there are likely legitimate reasons. Perhaps they were victims of online smearing in another instance, and want no part of anything even remotely similar. Maybe they are overly sensitive to sexism and sexual imagery. I know plenty of people who take offense to the term “motherfucker,” which does appear in the piece, very poorly bleeped. We should be careful to presume the offended are overreacting until they’ve had an opportunity to express their position. Then again, why do we have to force them to explain their position?
Plus, it’s always risky to inject sex and obscene language into a holiday with spiritual roots. Hell, some people even view Santa as sacred on certain levels.
Ernie Schenck, who used to run a blog a lot better than most of ours, once picked up on this topic. Interestingly enough, it was in reference to something said by Barack Obama. Check it out. You might also want to pick up a copy of Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen.
No one’s asking for my advice, but here it is anyway. Plaid should minimally apologize to the two offended people, expressing the old, “We obviously never meant to offend anyone” position. Then they should consider their audience better in future efforts. It’s one thing to deliver edgy work to clients, yet quite another to force it upon them unexpectedly.
Happy Holidays.
@Anon - True. If they were strangers, They weren't. And if they didn’t know their targets. They do. And if it was really edgy or extreme for some. I can’t believe the notion of this thing was taken seriously though. But I’ll let Darryl speak for himself here with his response.
Yes, I just saw the Adrants post, and commented there too. But as Darryl points out, the “holiday greeting” most likely extended beyond the intended recipients. For someone claiming to be an expert in Web 2.0, Plaid really blew it. On certain levels, Plaid knew the message would go beyond the recipients – and they probably hoped it would. It goes back to my original contention: Plaid didn’t know their audience. They might have known their immediate audience, but they completely fucked up by not considering the true residual audience. I stand by my positions – even more strongly after seeing the Adrants post and comments.
Saw the comment. Can’t please everyone unless you’re 100% safe. Who wants that? Based on that logic, I can see how having offended two people means the whole thing’s a complete failure.
No, I think you’re overreacting now. We can never hope to be 100 percent safe. But my issues involve the definitions of edgy (and safe), as well as the professionalism of Plaid. I’ll be the first to admit, I’m an industry elitist. That is, my career has been spent servicing Fortune 100 clients. And yes, I’ve even produced a few agency holiday cards in my time. Darryl noted that the offended workers are part of a large corporation. Sorry, but anyone who thought they could send this video to a large corporation without anticipating/considering the potential negative results is an amateur. I’m not saying it’s wrong or right – it’s just life in the real world.
I think too many of us are quick to hide behind the old, “If we can’t be edgy, we shouldn’t be in the business” platform. Why does edgy have to be offensive and sophomoric? The Apple 1984 spot is held up as perhaps the greatest idea in our industry. Where is the offensiveness in that concept? Ditto Bernbach’s VW ads. Or Goodby’s Got Milk? campaign. Or W + K Nike ads. It’s easy to be allegedly edgy and breakthrough by offending people. It’s a lot more difficult to come up with a great idea that maintains its greatness across a wide audience.
I like the folks at Plaid. Dig your work too. But this video is not that great. And it appears that the creators did not really think things through.
Just my elitist opinion.
They're plenty professional. “...completely fucked up...”, is overreacting. But, we can take the hit because we critique a lot of work on both our blogs and fair’s fair. My name and pic are on the blog, so have at it.
Plaid’s done a lot of stuff that would be considered completely safe for Fortune 100s as well, (as have I), and stuff that would be wrong for the same brands. We know the difference.
Your definition of safe is personal, as is everyone’s. If you agree being 100% safe is out of the question, then not everyone will ‘get it’ just based on the numbers alone. The choice then becomes, do you water down an idea so that everyone has zero problem with it, or do you do it the way you want and risk losing 5%? 20%? 50% of your audience?
The thought process here was “What can we do that everyone would be okay with, that involves the client in a little bit of good-natured fun, that isn't the same thing other shops are doing or have done, and still is a little funky.”
To imply they don't understand the space though just because of the reaction of these two parties is disingenuous. Sometimes, something hits someone the wrong way and you can’t second-guess, let alone figure out why that is ahead of time. (I hate Mad Men, but it's a critic/viewer fave. Does that mean the show is a failure just because I hate it? Pretty sure they could care less about my opinion.)
But especially when this promo was sent to several of Plaid’s FAR more conservative clients than the two people who complained. Those clients responded positively.
If this were a case were 5 out of 10, 8 out of 10 hated it, then I'd be the first to say Plaid fucked up. So would they.
Nobody’s hiding behind the ‘edgy’ arguement. The “Any PR is good PR” mindset is something I’ve always hated and mentioned here before as an easy out. If all-out attention is what Plaid was after, there are other things we could’ve done.
The assumption that Plaid didn’t consider the audience and the implications of a corporate environment is based on...? Considering something and not worrying about it are two different things.
Those ad examples you cite are classics, sure, but, they're classics to compare your work to no matter what the category, and not everything those shops do is perfect either.
Appreciate the props you gave, and Plaid doesn't do only one style of work. Some edgy, some not, depending on the brand. So far, knock on wood, long-term clients large and small have liked the work done for them enough to keep coming back.
Which is not the same as an agency card/promo where you have more freedom to push things and is a key difference: If Plaid messed up on regular client work and missed the mark relative to expectations, they wouldn’t have been around as long as they have.
Dead horse now officially cremated I suppose.
Well, like I’ve been trying to say, everyone reacts to things differently based on their own personal perceptions. Additionally, online comments can appear overly black-and-white at times, and I apologize if certain remarks appeared extreme.
When I say, “completely fucked up,” I don’t mean that in an absolute sense. We all completely fuck up. It’s just part of the game. At the same time, how we respond to the fuck ups is critical too.
Yes, there is obviously and definitely a difference between work created with clients and things like this video. I work with many clients who, realizing the sensibilities of the target audience and the market, will approve “edgy” work that counters their personal sensibilities. But that does not mean I should feel free to hoist that same “edginess” on them in a personal context – and that’s what a holiday greeting is. I question the rationale behind Plaid’s decision in this specific context. There are certainly other and better ways to show off your creativity and techno savvy. Why go offensive and sophomoric on what many still deem a spiritual holiday?
You wrote, “considering something and not worrying about it are two different things.” Are you implying that Plaid recognized the risk and went ahead regardless? If so, they deserve all the negative press they receive (oops, that might be another example of extreme comments).
The last point probably crystallizes the root issue here. This was supposed to be a holiday greeting – or a self-promotional effort at best. Do you really think this is going well for Plaid? Do you believe the collective community will embrace them for their creative bravado? Plaid probably has a sticky situation with one client, at least. They might even have lost the business. That’s what makes this so unnecessary. If you go to the Plaid website and view the work, you’ll see they are professional and creative. This video does not reflect their abilities. Or does it?
But again, it’s just my elitist opinion.
Anon and Bill: You both bring up some excellent points. I'll elaborate on our thinking and some of the background that went into the production of Kringlegate.
First, you should know that Plaid's brand image is buried in fun and humor. A quick visit to our website will show that we're about as far as you can get from a traditional, conservative firm. Our clients know this, and enjoy this (we've been told.) We tend to gravitate to clients who share a sense of humor, who enjoy their jobs, and we usually avoid working with "stuffed shirts." That said, our work does indeed speak for itself, and we boast clients from the most conservative sectors to the absolutely bizarre - and have expertly crafted campaigns that speak to all of their appropriate audiences.
Second, our agency holiday greetings have also had a history of offbeat humor. Santa Hunters and a Christmas Gory are great past examples. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q4pnI1GH50 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlcYUL9srn8, respectively.) Our clients have come to expect this, to the point of calling, emailing and asking (as early as September) "what's in store for this year??"
We did discuss the language in the KringleGate card prior to publishing. The script does indeed include a bleeped "mother freaker", the word "skank" and a child that says "freaking" conveniently bleeped to hint that she may have said something else. After some brief discussion at the agency, we considered it no more offensive than language used regularly on major network prime time sitcoms, and certainly not racy enough to deem a NSFW warning. We didn't remotely consider it to be controversial to our audience. Only slightly humorous.
Our intention was never to create an "over the top offensive" card. That's a cheap tactic, and not our style. We've even turned down work of that sort, in the past. We simply intended to create a humorous holiday greeting that people could send to their friends. A brief chuckle in an otherwise stressful time of year.
By the looks of it, I believe that we have created a piece that speaks to our audience. On average, recipients created four new versions for their friends. We've received countless calls, emails and comments - all positive. We've even received two potential requests to create similar promotions for other brands. We originally sent the greeting to about 200 people. It's now been viewed by over 10,000. That's well beyond any of our expectations, and proof it resonated with our core audience.
What's especially ironic about this year's greeting is that we believe it to be mediocre work at best. A good idea, moderately executed. Bad acting, hurried Flash work, no embed option - it's a holiday card that was literally thrown together in three days, without time for proper production or polish. Proof that it's not always your best work that gets the most attention. ;)
For the record, I have crafted a letter to the offended recipient's legal counsel apologizing for any unintended offense we may have caused. Right or wrong, if they were legitimately offended - we're sorry for that, as it was never, ever our intention.
And to that point...anyone that received the card who was offended could have easily deleted the message and not shared their version with friends. This particular recipient's version was shared at least 23 times. Sharing started with the recipient, at the recipient's discretion. I receive emails and links to programs nearly every day that offend me. I delete or ignore them. I don't forward them to 23 friends. :)
Thanks for the awesome comments and discussion. This is good!
Well, Darryl, I’m going to take you at your word that the awesome comments and discussion are good, and respond to your latest remarks.
As I’ve stressed before, we’re all reacting according to our own personal perspectives, based on our own experiences.
My experiences in this scenario are rooted in a lot of personal and professional beliefs about the Web 2.0 world and our collective responsibilities as citizens in this world. And I believe you violated certain rules – though I will be the first to admit that there are no rules in the Web 2.0 world (that is, a lot of it is based on unwritten agreements of “professional courtesy,” for lack of a better term).
First, I hope we all agree that society is undergoing seismic, revolutionary evolution. And nowhere are these changes more dramatic than in the digital space (indeed, the digital space is creating much of the change). After all, that’s why people decided to call it Web 2.0 – it’s a different arena than the initial digital space of only a few years ago.
That being said, your past holiday videos are semi-irrelevant. They were created in a different time, and perhaps even for a different audience. I only viewed one of the past videos you offered as evidence, and there is a significant difference: in the past, you did not force recipients into the story. Recipients were only required to watch, versus participate. That’s a big difference.
I stand by my position that sending this video to a huge corporation displayed a certain amateurishness on your part. Again, we live in a changing world. Don’t blame the lawyer for his/her actions. They are undoubtedly reacting based on the current employment environment, where workers are quick to go to court for real and perceived “injuries.” A video like yours could easily be viewed as an example of a discriminatory and hostile work environment. The lawyer probably “trumped” the charges in the letter to you, but that’s how lawyers operate. Being vague or polite doesn’t work in these situations. The lawyer needed to show the rest of his/her company that material like your video is not considered appropriate for all audiences. Additionally, it’s likely that the original recipients did not take offense, but they apparently passed it along to someone who did. So your video possibly put your friends in a bad situation too.
On a side note, network primetime sitcoms do get rated based on content. That’s not a good excuse for deeming your video suitable for public viewing in a huge corporation.
But all that aside, here’s my beef with you.
Bill recently published a post about reacting to complainers, and he wondered if a good course of action would be to simply do nothing.
Like it or not, you found yourself in such a scenario, and your response was questionable. For the record, I didn’t completely agree with Bill on his post. I believe each scenario demands its own response. But in your case, you should have followed Bill’s advice. You could have simply contained it, responded to the lawyer, and let it go. No one would have known or cared.
Instead, you allowed it to leak into the blogosphere. You posted a private letter between you and the lawyer. And at Adrants, you even went so far as to criticize the corporate culture of your own client – despite admitting that you did not know the “back story” in the scenario. Sorry, but I think that is amateurish too.
But wait, there’s more.
In defending yourself, you’re exposing results to your video (e.g., one recipient allegedly shared the video 23 times). In short, you are tracking the personal digital footprints of your own client. When you sent the video, did you alert your clients that you would be tracking them? I hope so. Again, this goes to my own personal beliefs about responsibility as citizens in the Web 2.0 world. Merry Christmas, friends – even your holiday greetings are viewed as potential advertising content and fuck your privacy!
Anyway, I think we all have spent too much time on this. I do respect Plaid and the work you’ve done. And I do not believe anyone should be judged/branded by their mistakes; rather, we should be viewed for our positive accomplishments. And your enterprise has many. But you really need to spend a little more time contemplating your actions in this scenario.
Bill Bernbach used to carry a little note in his pocket with four words: They may be right. It was his reminder to consider countering perspectives before completely dismissing someone. Your client may not be completely right. But they are definitely not completely wrong. They did not deserve to be criticized for their corporate culture. And they sure as shit shouldn’t be tracked with a holiday greeting.
But as always, that’s just my elitist opinion.
Happy Holidays.
P.S., Darryl, if you wish to continue this conversation offline, feel free. Bill can probably figure out my identity and he has my email address.
Happy New Year to everybody. Greetings from Russia http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=M-_6HhdN6x4&feature=related
(Family emergency. Just now getting back online today.)
@Anon, responding to various things in no order as I have a ton of emails to catch up on and the brain's a little fried today. It's def. harder online to understand the tone of voice online and this easily could’ve devolved into a F-bomb F-you fest, so at least there's a civil discussion happening.)
I would say yes, they disregarded the possibility of a negative reaction when compared with how they believed the whole thing would be received. Nobody thought/expected they'd get a letter from a lawyer over it. Who does with these kind of things, you know?
With the overly-litigious, ‘offended so I will blog about it’ mindset in this country, (I'll touch on your response on that more in a sec), does this mean though that the litmus test for promos now need to be "Will we get a letter from a lawyer over this?”
Pharma may let the lawyers dictate 100% of their creative, but if lawyers now get to decide what’s okay in other categories, this business is truly screwed.
(And personally, if someone’s that offended, you’d think they’d send a direct response or pick up the phone saying 'You know, I understand you wanted to have fun, but it really got me in trouble.”
Instead, they ran to the principal to settle things. As for Plaid knowing any of this ahead of time, doesn’t mean they were blowing off any possible negative reaction either—they just weren't going to let that dictate everything, and again, maybe you think you’ll get a few negative comments on a blog post because not everyone likes everything.
Isn't that the point though: Not everyone likes everything, so what do you do? How do you plan to make sure everyone loves everything? Crispin as a rule polarizes, but specifically, Whooper Freakout risked losing customers after punking them, and I’m sure they knew people would get pissed. But they went ahead and did it. That’s not just a holiday card, it’s a major brand in a major consumer category with a lot of money at stake. Still, they took a risk that it could backfire and cost them bad press and sales.
(Maybe they figured the losses were so insignificant why not do it, who knows. But, just like the two offended in Plaid's case, don’t the BK customers who were pissed also have just as much right to sue? Pretty sure the lawyers could work in emotional distress somewhere.) ;-p )
Crispin aside, my post about complainers was aimed specifically at people who feel offended when a brand runs ads they thought insensitive, and then goes out and blogs about it. In the process though, they twist the issue into being about them and their own personal crusade. Something my own Pepsi rants have come close to doing. (Difference there is that I focus on what I think the brand needs to do, not a personal wrong they done me. ;-p )
So with a serious issue like suicide, I see someone come on talk about how their family member attempted it, and then go into details about the methods and aftermath, etc., it’s like only they have a right to be outraged because they suffered? Hmmm. Plenty of people were just as offended who never had it touch their lives personally.
The person(s) in Plaid’s case didn’t go and blog about it, so I don’t know that this is that relevant to the scenario above. Plaid only passed that out as an example of how PC things have become. We’re kind of incredulous that this thing would be that offensive. First reaction after seeing the email, seriously, was one of “Are you kidding?”
As for tracking, Darryl can respond to specific metrics and what he uses, but what agency doesn’t monitor anything they do online? How many virals have people watched that are but one in a million views the seeding shop tracks and never tells you about? (Or even YT’s own Insight for that matter.) Google analytics is on how many blogs? Sitemeter alone will tell me exactly what you mentioned: Your email, IP, etc. Standard stuff. Even major shops like R/GA, Barbarian Group, Akqa, etc., all monitor stuff. (Not really sure how that’s an issue, unless the release of the lawyer’s email is really the problem here.)
At this point though, I probably should continue this discussion offline as I just may have spread those same ashes over the water.
;-p
I got an invite for online Tetris from a production house. Best holiday card ever. Spent hours trying to win that thing.
Bill,
Hope your family emergency was not serious, and it’s been resolved.
First, as I commented at Adrants, I agree with you that it would have been nice if the company had started with a simple phone call to Plaid. Seems like it would have resolved everything much better.
As I stated in an earlier comment, I also agree with you that we can never be 100 percent safe or 100 percent certain of not offending anyone. When sending a message to masses, we will probably always offend someone. My issue involves how we respond to the offended.
Based on the information I can gather from these few posts and threads, Plaid sent out the video to 200 people. And two people were offended. Using my limited math skills, that equals a 1 percent disapproval rating. I think we would both agree that is extremely good. I wish my own campaigns did that well. But like it or not, I think Plaid blew it by broadcasting this issue. They completely put the spotlight on the negative, which is actually a true minority of their audience. As I stated in a previous comment, Plaid would have been better off keeping things contained and private. They could have focused on the 99 percent approval rating, and the subsequent 10,000 views.
Yes, the offended people did not blog about their gripes. Plaid did. They brought the issue online via sources like MTLB and Adrants. And I think they were wrong in doing so.
I currently work at an agency that’s part of an international network. My office has roughly 150 employees. The Plaid video is something I might forward to certain coworkers. But I would never send it as a mass email, even in my office of 150. Why? Because I know there are coworkers who would take offense. It has nothing to do with being politically correct or thinking certain people are overly sensitive or avoiding the wrath of the HR department. It’s about recognizing that larger groups/workforces are diverse, with a variety of attitudes and sensibilities. It’s about common courtesy and respect. If I know something might offend someone, I see no reason to push my personal sense of humor on them.
As I also stated in an earlier comment, we do not know why the offended reacted so strongly. Perhaps one of them was recently smeared as being promiscuous, and the video inadvertently set them off. Or maybe the company is currently facing a class-action lawsuit from employees charging discrimination, and the video appears to be another example of the crudeness that employees are subjected to. Granted, these speculations are extreme, but the point is, WE DON’T KNOW. As Darryl stated at Adrants, he would love to know the “back story” in this scenario. At this point, many of us would like to know. But until we do have the details, it’s inappropriate for us to presume that the offended and the company are uptight, anal, oversensitive, humorless, Nazi-like, etc. My personal position has always been, let’s not be so quick to criticize others’ alleged over-sensitivity; rather, we should consider our own over-insensitivity.
By going online and demeaning the company and ridiculing their corporate culture, Plaid jumped the gun. Their overreaction to the lawyer’s letter is just as bad as the perceived overreaction by the company, in my elitist opinion. In these situations, it’s best to deal directly with the source and resolve the issue versus going online with criticism.
I think we may disagree regarding the tracking component. My position is that the public is highly sensitive about privacy, and rightly so. For example, although I know my company is completely within its rights to track my online usage at work, I want to believe they are not tracking me. And I definitely don’t want them sharing the info with others. Think about this specific scenario. Based on the tone of the lawyer’s letter, it’s possible that Plaid’s two recipients were minimally reprimanded by their company for forwarding the video. Do you think Plaid’s friend at the company wants his/her bosses to know they passed the video at least 23 times? Sorry, but Plaid is making a bad situation worse. And they are violating the trust of their clients/friends by sharing personal information. Illegal? No. Unethical? I say yes.
Do I think Plaid is being deliberately mean or unethical? Of course not. I continue to think they have not thought things through.
On a side note, I’ll also confess my company is among the top 5 digital agencies worldwide. So we are always debating and cognizant about issues of online privacy. As a result, it’s a particular personal and sticky issue for me.
Anyway, that’s my elitist two cents for today. Happy holidays.
@Anon - email me when you have a sec. mtlbblog *at* gmail.com
Anon -
You make some of the best points yet in that last comment.
Your discussion on this has not been lost on me, and we'll be reflecting on your elitist opinions greatly. ;)
Post a Comment