“A dispute over the uniqueness of a popular new commercial for the Apple iPod is again raising the issue of what constitutes originality in advertising,” Stuart Elliott writes for The New York Times. “…Bloggers have posted scores of comments describing and decrying what they have deemed to be far too many similarities between the Apple commercial [“Detroit”], created by the longtime Apple agency, TBWA/Chiat/Day, and a spot [“Arrow”] produced three years ago by another agency, which was selling the Lugz brand of boots. In a statement late yesterday, its first since the debate began a week ago, TBWA/Chiat/Day said any resemblance between the commercials was ‘disappointing and surprising’ as well as ‘regrettable.'”
Elliott reports, “…The senior executive of the agency that created the Lugz spot, Avrett Free Ginsberg, to write Apple and TBWA/Chiat/Day, questioning what he called the ‘many similarities’ between the commercials. ‘It is often said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and in most cases I would agree,’ Frank Ginsberg, chairman and chief executive of Avrett Free in New York, wrote in his letter, a copy of which was shared with reporters. ‘But sometimes, imitation crosses the line.'”
“‘We’re very upset,’ Larry Schwartz, executive vice president and principal at Lugz in New York, said in an interview. ‘The look and feel are awfully similar. We think very highly of Apple. We don’t understand how this could have happened.’ In the statement from TBWA/Chiat/Day, part of the TBWA Worldwide unit of the Omnicom Group, the agency described itself as ‘dedicated to creating original ideas. We do not plagiarize, borrow, or steal them, and have a strict policy of not accepting third-party ideas in our creative process,’ the statement read,” Elliott reports. “…In its statement, TBWA/Chiat/Day said, ‘We can assure you that the ‘Detroit’ spot was created without any reference by TBWA/Chiat/Day to the ‘Arrow’ spot. Our intention was to develop a campaign that was a natural and independent evolution of the ‘Silhouettes’ campaign,’ the statement read. ‘Any similarities between the two spots are regrettable.'”
Full article here.
This is perhaps the best thing that ever happened for the Avrett Free Ginsberg ad agency. Where’s the mass media’s outcry about actual products that try to copy Apple? For example, Microsoft Windows?
Advertisements:
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music + video experience on the go. Buy it now at the Apple Store. From $299. Free shipping.
The New iMac G5 – Built-in iSight camera and remote control with Front Row media experience. From $1299. Free shipping.
Related article:
Apple takes heat for Eminem iPod+iTunes ad’s similarity to 4-year-old Lugz spot – October 20, 2005
Apple’s Eminem iPod+iTunes ad airs on U.S. television networks – October 17, 2005
Apple reposts Eminem iPod+iTunes ad online – October 17, 2005
Apple removes new Eminem iPod ad from website – October 12, 2005
Microsoft’s Windows Vista strives to deliver what Apple’s Mac OS X already offers – October 10, 2005
Thurrott: many of Windows Vista’s upcoming features appeared first in Apple’s Mac OS X – September 26, 2005
Microsoft’s Ballmer: It’s true, some of Windows Vista’s features are ‘kissing cousins’ to Mac OS X – September 19, 2005
Microsoft suffers from malaise, key defections, Windows Vista struggles, lack of towels – September 16, 2005
Microsoft’s Bill Gates’ prediction of Apple iPod market share decline fails to materialize – September 18, 2005
PC World: Microsoft innovation – an oxymoron – September 15, 2005
Microsoft debuts Dashboard Widgets, er, ‘Microsoft Gadgets’ – September 13, 2005
Microsoft appropriates Apple’s ‘brushed metal’ look for Office 12 for Windows – September 13, 2005
Apple to unleash Leopard on Microsoft’s Windows Longhorn; Mac OS X 10.5 due late 2006 – early 2007 – June 07, 2005
Windows tech writer Thurrott: ‘In many ways, Mac OS X Tiger is simply better than Windows’ – May 07, 2005
Bill Gates jokes about Mac OS X ‘Tiger’ and calls Apple ‘the super-small market share guy’ – May 03, 2005
Thurrott: ‘Longhorn is in complete disarray and in danger of collapsing under its own weight’ – April 27, 2005
Windows czar Allchin says Apple copying Microsoft’s Windows Longhorn – April 27, 2005
Thurrott: Longhorn ‘has the makings of a train wreck’ – April 26, 2005
Thurrott: Longhorn demos ‘unimpressive, fall short of graphical excellence found today in Mac OS X’ – April 26, 2005
Microsoft employees leaving due to (and blogging about) malaise smothering company – April 25, 2005
eWEEK Editor Coursey: Longhorn so far ‘looks shockingly like a Macintosh’ – April 25, 2005
Due in late 2006, many of Windows Longhorn’s features have been in Mac OS X since 2001 – April 25, 2005
Microsoft’s new mantra: ‘It Just Works’ ripped straight from Apple’s ‘Switch’ campaign – April 22, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs on Microsoft’s Longhorn: ‘They are shamelessly copying us’ – April 21, 2005
Microsoft’s Windows Longhorn will bear more than just a passing resemblance to Apple’s Mac OS X – April 15, 2005
The Age: ‘Apple’s Mac OS X at least a generation ahead of Windows XP, iMac G5 clearly the best’ – December 15, 2004
Silicon Valley: Apple CEO Steve Jobs previews ‘Longhorn’ – June 29, 2004
Apple CEO Steve Jobs: Mac OS X Tiger ‘is going to drive the copycats crazy – June 28, 2004
Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs previews Mac OS X 10.4 ‘Tiger’ to ship in the first half of 2005 – June 28, 2004
Apple takes dead aim at Microsoft, ‘Longhorn’ with WWDC Mac OS X 10.4 ‘Tiger’ ads – June 28, 2004
PC Magazine: Microsoft ‘Longhorn’ preview shows ‘an Apple look’ – May 06, 2004
Microsoft concerned that Longhorn’s look and feel will be copied if revealed too soon – August 25, 2003
Windows ‘Longhorn’ to add translucent windows that ripple and shrink by 2005 – May 19, 2003
Apple leads; Wintel follows as usual – November 11, 2002
They are similar. Not so much the the black out of the people because I do see that as an evolution of the black silluette. But it’s the background…the buildings and the colour scheme that makes the similarities stand out.
But then again, look at all the print ads… especially movie posters…there are tons of similar movie posters…
Shame on Apple for this. Quite simply, if Microsoft did the same thing EVERYONE HERE would be FREAKING OUT ON THEM. But because it’s Apple you all justify them ripping off another artists vision.
The Eminem add in very similar – it looks like the iPod silhouette commercial updated by someone that saw the Lugz commercial. The cityscape and color and use of graffiti-style letters flying – it stands out.
I don’t really buy the “there’s nothing new” argument. There’s a difference between things being of similar style and having major elements whose essential quality are the same. In terms for the inspiration argument, the Eminem advert is only incrementally different in style, certainly not what I would call a artistic advance.
That’s not to say they could not have been arrived at independently. I can’t believe that if someone from TBWA/Chiat/Day intentionally copied the Lugz ad – why would they intentionally do something to cause the company trouble? If you’d seen the ad, they would have at a minimum used a different color and avoided graffiti-style type. However, even if not intentional, that doesn’t mean TBWA/Chiat/Day should take some hit, if only in reputation.
Spark says: “Has ANYBODY seen this Lugz ad they are talking about? For the life of me, I cannot understand what the agency can be upset about. Did their ad flop 3 years ago. If it did its job at the time, then move on.”
I had it sent to me a week or so ago (and promptly deleted it). It’s very … orange. And instead of ‘splashes of paint’ effects (Apple), it has a ‘magic marker’ effect, where a perpetual graffiti mark follows a dancing human (who appears totally animated, not a real person) wearing white Lugz.
As I write the description, it sounds much more similar than what it comes across as when you see it (the soundtracks are different enough that I think it helps separate them conceptually). Nonetheless, I can see where this PR firm is coming from – I think someone, somewhere along the line, was ‘inspired’ by it – even if it’s not a direct ripoff.
A sympathetic judge could see it their way. An objective one would tell ’em to shove off.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” />
View the two ads side by side and you can’t miss how badly the Lugz ad was done. The production value is amateurish compared to Apple’s. The only similarity is the rust colored industrial city scape background. I’d say Lugz was initially trying to copy the iPod style of ads while trying not to get sued for doing it. Those flying arrows look similar to the iPod Shuffle logo to me.
I think the Lugz ad really sucks bad while the Apple ad sucks less because the production values are so much better. It’s still isn’t up to Apple’s past creative standards.
Of course it looks amateurish. It was probobly done in a few months. (fast deadline)
The Apple ad took 2 and a half years to complete according to steve jobs.
I side with Psyop.
go to thier site and see all there other creative commercials.
http://www.psyop.tv/main.php
BTW, the lugs ad with the animated graffiti is a copy of a music video from 1995. Company Flow “End to end burner” About a graffiti scribble that comes to life and scribbles itself around live footage of the New York subway system.
How come nobody has mentioned Apple stealing the
Zaterain silhouette comercial as well.
Zathttps://www.funandfoods.com/zatsNew/entryPage.asp
the horror, i’m hungry. i’ll put on my lugz and get a bite.
<style of ads…</i>
This was the iPod ad that was running when the Lugz ad was conceptualized, more than three years ago.
http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/ipod_beat.html
These things just don’t spring fully formed from someone’s imagination onto television. There’s a lot of work to be done before an animated ad hits the airwaves. TBWA/Chiat/Day didn’t do their homework, and because of this Apple is forced to bear the brunt of these accusations of plagiarism.
TBWA/Chiat/Day used to make innovative ads, now they’re just lazy hacks. Nissan had to pull one of their ads because it was offensive to WWII vets who fought in the Pacific, and now they’re bringing a lot of unnecessary heat upon Apple. It’s time for Apple to find a new advertising agency.
does lugz have a patent on orange sketchy urban scenes with partially silhouetted characters?
sometimes coincidences happen. cry me a sketchy orange river.
I’ve watched both ads, and I think the biggest similarity is the background color. Sure both have city/urban settings, but the settings are pretty darn different. Like comparing New York to Detriot (yeah, they’re both cities, but…).
I got the feeling that if Chiat/Day hadn’t used the orange, but blue, the issue probably wouldn’t have come-up. But that said, orange was the new black for quite sometime, especially on the web, and it makes sense for that to carry over into print and TV.
I’m a commercial junkie, and I have to admit to having completely forgot about the Lugz ad, it was done that long ago. The Chiat/Day ad did have a sense of familiarity to me, but mostly, I thought that they improved on the technique they had started with the U2 Vertigo ads. I didn’t like the technique much there, but thought it was much improved based on the new ads. I also want to say, I ‘ve seen the same or similar technique in some music videos, but without the distinct Apple flavor.
Some nameless idiot said :
does lugz have a patent on orange sketchy urban scenes with partially silhouetted characters?
nope they don’t – they came up with the concept and Apple/agency copied it – if MS copied the the iPod your panties will be in a bunch I’m sure. patent or no patent.
I’m a true Apple follower since 84 but I don’t excuse this kind of shit.
The ad agency world ALL know of each others work so it is inexcusable to claim ignorance.
Each time I see a negative headline on the main page of MacDailyNews, I click on it if only to see the knee-reflex apologist response from whomever writes the “MacDailyNews takes.” The author of MacDailyNews comes off as a blathering sycophant.
What’s the big deal? After Apple’s switcher ads, lots of agencies did similar white backgrounds with real people talking, like AMC. I’m sure someone can go back even further to see where the switcher ads got inspired from
In fact, I bet Steve and Apple had never seen a Lugz ad. It’s the ad agency that made the ad for Apple. If Steve doesn’t renew the agency’s contract, we’ll know why.
When something is redone poorly, it’s called a ripoff. When something is done better than the original, it’s called an homage. Commonly used when movies are done in a Hitchcockian style.
holy crap!
http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/ipod_beat.html
Did Chait/Day create this commercial too?
What a piece of crap. Out dated dances -the moonwalk (1982) the running man(1987)
crappy propellerheads song. AWEFUL!
And that Lugz commercial was out before this ad.
I think we can see who is the trendsetter in advertising is.
Concept, tone, rhythm, cinematography, montage are different between the two spots. How are they similar? Just because some color similarities and transposing of images of cityscapes? I’m looking at the two side-by-side and I don’t see it.
psyop did amazing work at the time with the Lugz spot. I remember seeing it at the time – and I watch alot of work from other studios since I’m doing this kind of work myself as a Flame artist and visual director. Skipping the obvious blabla about “nothing’s really new” or shit like “do they own graffiti/orange/silhouette style” I must say CheatDay really blew it this time. On a sidenote, I wonder what the people claiming psyops spot is “amateurish” compared to Apple’s. Without going into techno babble but the Apple spot is, on a techical level, so much less advanced than the Lugz spot, believe me. It’s often a part of my profession to “reverse-engineer” certain looks and VFX. And yes, many clients ask me to copy stuff from other agencies/studios, something I so far have managed to talk them out of. Oh well.
I thought I remember reading that someone at the production house–that actually Made The Ad for the ad agency–said they weren’t interested in pursuing it. Ad agency just wants some press for Lugz. I got yer lugz, right here.
T ‘s insight
” I’m looking at the two side-by-side and I don’t see it.”
Just because you don’t see it does not mean it is not there.
Ask that question to anybody who has ever looked for the their keys or their contact lens.
Your views are just views not facts. just like mine are.
Grow up squirt
That Lugz spot is pretty bad. No wonder I don’t remember it. The Apple spot isn’t much better. My kids can make a better spot with iPhoto. Hey Lugz they need money for college and they hate orange even though it’s Halloween.
It’s a conspiracy.
Pissoff (sic) has Napster as a client
I think they’re similar, but ain’t nobody gonna do no-thing about it. It’s out now and they can just bite the big one. Does very many people even REMEMBER ads after 6 months?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
AlandD: “Just because you don’t see it does not mean it is not there.”
My take: Just because somebody says it’s there, doesn’t mean it is.
That is my point. You have to prove that the concept, theme, character (style), tone, cinematography, montage, and rhythm are all similar to the point that in many of these points it’s imitation – almost a carbon copy. Some elements may have a similar feel to it, but it’s not the same as saying that the ads are similar.
I can apply a “Saving Private Ryan” look to my movie, it doesn’t mean that my movie has to be similar. On another note, I could have never seen “Saving Private Ryan” and still applied the same look with my own experimentation.
Of course, they could have used images of a desert, a forest, waterfalls, of animals, the living room, instead of urban dwelling in the ad. Or they could have just stuck with the uniform color forever.
Mr T
Of course, they could have used images of a desert, a forest, waterfalls, of animals, the living room, instead of urban dwelling in the ad. Or they could have just stuck with the uniform color forever.
WTF?
What ever you smoking Tman please don’t pass it.
This is simply an outlet for Lugz to get mindshare. They see how big Apple is, and they want a piece of the pie. …Make that apple pie.
They’re jumping up and screaming over this ad, not because they’re mad, but because they want people to associate Apple’s product with their own.
MW: Mother, as in those mother fuc… You catch my drift?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Could it be more obvious that Lugz and their advertising agency are being huge hangers-on? Oh and I’ve watched the video comparison a few times and they very different ads. Lugz doesn’t own orange.