|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Also, losing him because he dared to play mario kart on camera is hilariously dumb. Like, okay, Sony and Nintendo "compete" for the handheld market, but as far as home consoles are concerned they had might as well not even be in the same business. It's Trademark Law 101, and his contract almost certainly forbid it as well. He should have known better than to do that in another commercial and he settled the lawsuit with Sony.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 07:48 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:45 |
|
Dr_Amazing posted:Growing up in Canada we watched a lot if American tv. So it was super common to see ads for businesses that didn't even operate in my country, prices given in a different currency, and sales for holidays we don't celebrate. I know this from forever ago, but vice-versa! I'm still not going to Marineland, though.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 07:59 |
|
ElwoodCuse posted:It's Trademark Law 101, and his contract almost certainly forbid it as well. He should have known better than to do that in another commercial and he settled the lawsuit with Sony. Whether or not they could legally go after Lambert has little to do with how reasonable it is. It's not like he was advertising for the competitor explicitly, he just did some poo poo for an unrelated company that had him use the product of a competitor. Considering his character for Sony was the best advertising they had going for them in years, you'd think they'd give it a break. FFS, the only reason why people buy Nintendo consoles is for Nintendo IPs, and it's not as if Sony isn't aware of this.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 08:20 |
|
It's really bad for companies to ignore trademark violations. They had to do it.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 08:27 |
|
ElwoodCuse posted:It's really bad for companies to ignore trademark violations. They had to do it. How is that a trademark violation, though? He was playing a character in the Sony adverts, which was not the same character as that in the Bridgestone commercial.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 08:33 |
|
bringmyfishback posted:I know this from forever ago, but vice-versa! Yeah don't they are horrible they have marshmallows in vending machines to feed to bears and the poor bears have no teeth, or that was the case when I went as a kid, I never went back.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 09:04 |
|
Speaking if spokesmen getting up to no good, there were these beer ads featuring that we're super popular. http://youtu.be/H15xBHqPDZE Until the guy got arrested for being a pedophile.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 09:35 |
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:How is that a trademark violation, though? He was playing a character in the Sony adverts, which was not the same character as that in the Bridgestone commercial. Dude this is really really basic stuff. If you're in an ad for a company you absolutely can't be in another ad using the competitor's product. Simple as that, of course it doesn't matter if you're playing another character. This is all standard contractual stuff in any ad ever made. Also Nintendo and Sony are competitors, in that they are both video game companies.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 10:12 |
|
For further reading on the Kevin Butler stuff http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-01-17-sony-settles-with-kevin-butler-actor-over-bridgestone-tyre-ad-lawsuit You can tell its European because the spell it tyre.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 11:02 |
|
This is a juicy one. Dunkin' Donuts has completely poo poo the bed with their Liverpool FC sponsorship. This morning they tweeted out the picture below with: “Love the LFC crest? Tweet us what you’d want on your personal crest and we might surprise you with your own!” Liverpool FC is one of the most storied clubs in England, known for their long history of winning lots of titles (not recently) and the tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. "You'll Never Walk Alone" has been the clubs slogan since the 1960s, and the phrase gained increased importance to club supporters since the 1989 tragedy. See those little flames on the outside of the LFC crest? Those were added in 1993 as a tribute to the 96 people who died. Dunkin Donuts turned them into milkshakes. You'll never walk alone? Nah, America runs on Dunkin'. LFC is owned by Americans, may as well drive that point home and annoy the fan base some more.... because you know, that makes sense when promoting coffee. fake edit: DD already apologized in the newspaper. A great example in being totally ignorant to the history of the organization you sponsor.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 14:14 |
|
joshtothemaxx posted:This is a juicy one. Dunkin' Donuts has completely poo poo the bed with their Liverpool FC sponsorship. This morning they tweeted out the picture below with: “Love the LFC crest? Tweet us what you’d want on your personal crest and we might surprise you with your own!” Aaargh, my toes curled in on themselves in horrified embarrassment the instant I saw that. Stellar job there, Dunkin Donuts. beautiful example of why you should always run your shiny new advertising idea past someone who might have a particle of knowledge about the organisation you're sponsoring.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 15:19 |
|
Where are these doughnut companies hiring PR? The Krispy Kreme Klub and now this...
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 15:28 |
|
Is it too late to talk about weird PSP ads? I remember this series from like 10 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zRPxEIPH_s
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 15:42 |
Chas McGill posted:Where are these doughnut companies hiring PR? The Krispy Kreme Klub and now this... I know LOL ADVERSE ADVERTISING is a fairly tired response to every P.R blunder but I genuinely believe KKK and this Dunking Donuts thing are deliberate. Krispy Kreme has gone from a cabinet I walk past and ignore in Tesco to being one of those viral Internet things everyone likes so much, and Dunkin' Donuts have simultaneously gained themselves a ton of good feeling amongst football fans who dislike Liverpool, as well as ensuring that Liverpool's notoriously vocal and whiny supporters will forever give them free advertising in the form of LA NEVER FURGET THE SHOCCHHHIN' DIZZPLAY OF DIZZRESPEC'. Guaranteed, in 2525 some disrguntled RoboScouser will be holobashing about how Dunkin' Donut branded nutrition pills should be boycotted because before the Nano Wars they teamed up with Rupert Murdoch to piss on Ken Bigley's grave. Free advertising FOREVER.
|
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 15:52 |
|
joshtothemaxx posted:
"You'll never walk alone" sounds like a really inappropriate slogan to associate with a disaster caused by thousands of people trying to walk into the stadium together. It's like identifying "Fly the friendly skies" with 9/11.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 15:53 |
|
Disgusting Coward posted:I know LOL ADVERSE ADVERTISING is a fairly tired response to every P.R blunder but I genuinely believe KKK and this Dunking Donuts thing are deliberate. Krispy Kreme has gone from a cabinet I walk past and ignore in Tesco to being one of those viral Internet things everyone likes so much, and Dunkin' Donuts have simultaneously gained themselves a ton of good feeling amongst football fans who dislike Liverpool, as well as ensuring that Liverpool's notoriously vocal and whiny supporters will forever give them free advertising in the form of LA NEVER FURGET THE SHOCCHHHIN' DIZZPLAY OF DIZZRESPEC'.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 15:54 |
|
Wandle Cax posted:Dude this is really really basic stuff. If you're in an ad for a company you absolutely can't be in another ad using the competitor's product. Simple as that, of course it doesn't matter if you're playing another character. This is all standard contractual stuff in any ad ever made. Also Nintendo and Sony are competitors, in that they are both video game companies. It is contractual, but it is not trademark violation. Most companies make their talent sign some kind of exclusivity agreement if they are going to be a major spokesperson, and he clearly violated that. But it has nothing to do with trademark.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 17:22 |
|
bringmyfishback posted:I know this from forever ago, but vice-versa! Marineland is awesome. There is a pit full of the laziest bears on earth and you can feed them special bear snacks. Toss what looks like a corn pop at a lazy fat bear and it catches it in its mouth. If it doesn't catch it it just looks at you like you threw it badly. Marineland should forgo the commercials of the rollercoasters and dolphins and just have 30 quiet seconds of fat bears lazily eating snacks. Edit: When I went about 10 years ago, the snacks for them were specially designed bear food with powdered vitamins sprinkled onto it. The person selling it was careful to tell everyone who bought some that it is for the bears, and while not toxic to humans, not a good idea to eat as the vitamin content it was higher than humans need. And the bears had teeth (you can see two bears with teeth in the photo). Mouse Dresser has a new favorite as of 17:52 on Feb 26, 2015 |
# ? Feb 26, 2015 17:48 |
|
Wandle Cax posted:Dude this is really really basic stuff. If you're in an ad for a company you absolutely can't be in another ad using the competitor's product. Simple as that, of course it doesn't matter if you're playing another character. This is all standard contractual stuff in any ad ever made. Also Nintendo and Sony are competitors, in that they are both video game companies. That's just breach of contract though, it has nothing to do with being a "trademark violation." Also, breach of contract doesn't generally have the same requirement of enforcement against known breaches that trademark does (protect it or lose it). In fact, most contracts have language that a party's failure to enforce its rights under the contract in one instance is expressly not a waiver of the right to enforce the contract in another instance. Guy probably shouldn't have done a commercial that violated his contract, but Sony probably shouldn't have blown up a good advertising campaign over it. I suppose, however, that we're just assuming the campaign was successful because we liked it and didn't like what followed. It's entirely possible that Sony just wasn't happy with the returns being generated by the campaign and was looking for a reason to terminate him.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 18:53 |
|
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 19:48 |
|
What's wrong with it? I mean it's an overwrought ad for a terrible drink at Starbucks, but that's pretty typical. edit: Oh wait, twin towers, lol.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 19:49 |
|
Not My Leg posted:That's just breach of contract though, it has nothing to do with being a "trademark violation." Also, breach of contract doesn't generally have the same requirement of enforcement against known breaches that trademark does (protect it or lose it). In fact, most contracts have language that a party's failure to enforce its rights under the contract in one instance is expressly not a waiver of the right to enforce the contract in another instance. Yes it does have to do with it. It's misappropriation and confusion. Failure to enforce rights is absolutely part of trademark law, and why no corporation will ever let something like that slide without at a minimum sending C&D notices or filing lawsuits. No corporate attorney is ever going to look at the tiniest possible trademark issue and say "eh no big deal let it go".
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 21:55 |
|
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 22:04 |
|
That's not a real ad.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 22:11 |
|
pentyne posted:That's not a real ad. The funny part is that one store did accept it
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 22:32 |
|
Dr Pepper posted:The funny part is that one store did accept it It's one of those things where its easier to just list the sale as a special coupon and charge the list price and then call corporate/franchise owner and ask rather then argue with a customer. If there's a horde of people trying to use it then that's when you refuse to accept it.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 23:25 |
|
Irisi posted:Aaargh, my toes curled in on themselves in horrified embarrassment the instant I saw that. Stellar job there, Dunkin Donuts. beautiful example of why you should always run your shiny new advertising idea past someone who might have a particle of knowledge about the organisation you're sponsoring. If I had a nickel for every marketer convinced they didn't need to do research because they already knew how to "hack the human animal", I'd have the salary of a successful marketer.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2015 23:47 |
|
Re: this Sony guy. A friend of a friend was the face of an ad campaign for a particular lager. He wasn't allowed to drink any other lager in a pub, unless they didn't have his on offer and then he had to ask for a generic glass. Apparently the fear was that someone would snap a pic of him holding a glass emblazoned with a rival drink's name or a bartender would tell people he didn't even drink the lager he advertised and the press would have a field day about it.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 00:31 |
|
Mouse Dresser posted:Marineland is awesome. There is a pit full of the laziest bears on earth and you can feed them special bear snacks. Toss what looks like a corn pop at a lazy fat bear and it catches it in its mouth. If it doesn't catch it it just looks at you like you threw it badly. This post made me want to go to Marineland.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 00:39 |
|
QUACKTASTIC posted:This post made me want to go to Marineland. quote:In 1977, The U.S. Department of Fisheries seized six bottlenose dolphins that had been illegally caught by John Holer in the Gulf of Mexico.[3] Hopefully this post makes you not want to go to Marineland.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 01:25 |
|
Marineland is probably best known around my house for supplying the tune to a song I wrote as a child about my brother peeing the bed. It is called "Urineland" (yer-EEN-land) and ends with "Seeing friends you've missed/a great big piss." Also, to actually contribute to the thread, Baskin Robbins was running this ad a few months ago and I thought it was funny:
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 01:30 |
|
Not My Leg posted:That's just breach of contract though, it has nothing to do with being a "trademark violation." Also, breach of contract doesn't generally have the same requirement of enforcement against known breaches that trademark does (protect it or lose it). In fact, most contracts have language that a party's failure to enforce its rights under the contract in one instance is expressly not a waiver of the right to enforce the contract in another instance. From what I read, he was no longer working with Sony prior to doing the Bridgestone advert. Still, could have been in his contract not to appear playing a competitor's games in such and such span of time. ElwoodCuse posted:Yes it does have to do with it. It's misappropriation and confusion. Failure to enforce rights is absolutely part of trademark law, and why no corporation will ever let something like that slide without at a minimum sending C&D notices or filing lawsuits. No corporate attorney is ever going to look at the tiniest possible trademark issue and say "eh no big deal let it go". Okay, you're still missing the part where this is not a goddamn trademark issue. His character was not a registered trademark. He was not used by a competing company. The character was not even in the goddamn commercial, it was just the same actor playing a game. This is Sony being overly litigious, and that's exactly what makes it bad for their public image. Arsonist Daria has a new favorite as of 01:39 on Feb 27, 2015 |
# ? Feb 27, 2015 01:30 |
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:From what I read, he was no longer working with Sony prior to doing the Bridgestone advert. Still, could have been in his contract not to appear playing a competitor's games in such and such span of time. quote:On September 11, 2012, Sony sued Lambert for "trademark infringement" due to his appearance in a Bridgestone commercial that featured the Wii as part of a sales promotion. They settled four months later, with Lambert agreeing not to appear in video game advertisements for two years. Whether or not Sony would've won isn't the point, they made it a trademark issue and that's what it was.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 01:39 |
|
pentyne posted:Whether or not Sony would've won isn't the point, they made it a trademark issue and that's what it was. Look, when a "trademark dispute" amounts to "well, we have no leg to stand on and also do not in fact own this trademark we are alleging we do but gently caress you we're taking you to court", I would argue that there is in fact no dispute. It's just Sony wagging its dick around because no one's going to bother calling them on it over something so inconsequential.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 01:44 |
|
Ego-bot posted:Hopefully this post makes you not want to go to Marineland. It does. Living on the other side of the world helps too.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 01:45 |
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:From what I read, he was no longer working with Sony prior to doing the Bridgestone advert. Still, could have been in his contract not to appear playing a competitor's games in such and such span of time. The dumb thing is that he's just a generic guy talking about a product, so any ad he does can be argued to be a similar character.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 02:03 |
|
Cleretic posted:Taking that as an example, Michael Jordan's got a following, and a degree of authenticity. If you're a fan of Michael Jordan, you might not directly go 'oh poo poo, he's endorsing Pepsi, time to ditch Coke forever', but you'll see Pepsi more favorably because that baskeballer you like, and maybe consider a role model, likes it. So either her agent employed the worst PR agency to run her social media accounts, or alternatively they outsourced that job to a cultural setting where it'd be very easy to miss out on news of her passing.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 02:37 |
|
Dr. Killjoy posted:So either her agent employed the worst PR agency to run her social media accounts, or alternatively they outsourced that job to a cultural setting where it'd be very easy to miss out on news of her passing. More likely the former than the latter, seems like it was a scheduled tweet that they missed cancelling.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 03:03 |
|
Ego-bot posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marineland_(Ontario) Nope, still want to go. They have a really, really good roller coaster.
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 03:26 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 15:45 |
|
Zombie Joan Rivers reminded me of this one from right after the Batman movie spree killing:
|
# ? Feb 27, 2015 09:06 |