Anyone else want credit for 'Elf Yourself'?
We all know how touchy ad people can be over getting credit for their ideas. I see it all the time as a reporter. Of course, it's harder to figure out who "created" campaigns nowadays, particularly in digital, where execution is so critical. (See the Big Spaceship-BBDO Cannes kerfuffle.) A while back, in a short profile of EVB, I wrote a single sentence citing the digital shop's success with OfficeMax's "Elf Yourself" campaign. Toy New York, EVB's partner in the effort, got very upset. The project was concepted by Toy and built by EVB, and the two shops had agreed to split credit down the middle, I was told. Fair enough. I ran a clarification. Today, though, I came across a Google ad that makes an interesting case that Toy was the sole creator of "Elf Yourself." I guess Google is the next battleground for the fight to own the idea. —Posted by Brian Morrissey |
|
November 13, 2008 in Controversy, EVB, Morrissey, Toy | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
wow...
Posted by: Adrian Ho | Nov 13, 2008 12:59:40 PM
How very iconic of Toy...
Posted by: Justin | Nov 13, 2008 1:40:17 PM
People have to stop confusing the word created with executed. EVP help realize a creative vision. They deserve their props. Split credit, no way. A great director, photographer may help bring a concept to life. They deserve credit. That's why we list directors, photographer, editors etc.. People in the biz notice who is always directing and shooting great stuff. That attention does, and should, result in future work. But this same group had nothing to do with creation and eventually the selling of the concept. And I'm sorry boys and girls, that's why agencies deserve all the credit. Yes, all. And when some digital house screws up, the agency gets all the blame. And they should. The agency hired them. And the agency is responsible for both their failures and most importantly ensuring they deliver exactly what they were hired to deliver. So, I'm sorry digital guys. I love you. But possessing a right-sided brain and and an over-sized computer doesn't make you creative genius. In this economy, hopefully it makes you employed. Some these digital houses may want ease up on the whining. It sure is annoying. And there sure are a lot of choices out there.
Posted by: Getoverit | Nov 13, 2008 2:01:35 PM
Haha @Getoverit. Be sure to bring that attitude with you when your traditional shop folds and you have to get a job on the internet. ;)
Posted by: Richard Webb | Nov 13, 2008 2:07:51 PM
Without the "tude" I believe GetOverIt is correct. It begins with the creation of an idea and ends with an execution. There is also a whole lot going on in-between. I don't believe the Google Ad for Toy will make a difference either way though.
Posted by: Kevin Amter | Nov 13, 2008 3:53:43 PM
Dear dick. I own my agency. It is anything but traditional. I do the firing and hiring. I won't be working "on" the internet anytime soon. My attitude, as you described, is nothing other than my opinion. Unfortunately, this is what Oliver Wendel Holmes described as the" market place of ideas." Please feel free to offer yours up. If you feel differently, state your case. Personally, I am sick of whiny digital houses. I love the services they provide. I will continue to enthusiastically work with most. I just refuse to share creative credit. I will, like I do with all vendors, give them credit where credit is due. Does the guy who type set Moby Dick deserve the same acknowledgement as Herman Melville? I know this is a silly, far-fetched comparison. But relevant nonetheless. My beef isn't with those who make their living in the digital world. It's with the boss or firm who demands credit for something he or she does not deserve. Ari, are you with me?
Posted by: Getoverit | Nov 13, 2008 4:20:23 PM
I have to agree with Getoverit. This is the way things have worked since the dawn of advertising. Just because it's in the digital form, as opposed to film or print, means absolutely nothing. Don't get me wrong, great editors, photographers, directors, digital artists, etc bring a lot to the table, and can add some much needed polish and/or vision, but the idea was born in the "womb" of the agency.
Posted by: Yeah | Nov 13, 2008 7:42:49 PM
Aside from the snarkiness, I agree with most of these comments, including that Idea and relationship ownership/risk has trumping rights on attribution. Especially in this environment there are lots of resources for execution and not so many great Ideas.
That said, we should also differentiate where a broad Idea was brought to life more dramatically and originally online. Applications like Elf Yourself isn't just an advertising Idea. And it's not just another "upload your face" execution--that's not an Idea; it's a best practice at best or well-worn tactic at worst. Elf Yourself is an application that easily facilitated connections and would have died in distribution without inspired creation.
Hats off to our friends at EVB for superior execution--we all know you took an Idea and made it Real through application.
Re: Toy Google Ad, meh. Who Created Liption.com, RedLobster.com, Michelob Brewer's Challenge, Desperate Housewive's Interactive Tour and more? The brands and truths we simply dramatized most powerfully online.
Posted by: mark silva | Nov 13, 2008 7:56:01 PM
Jeepers Getoverit! You may quote Holmes ("marketplace" is one word, btw) but you seem stuck in the same time period and mindset as I am!!
You see my friends at digital shops tell me that agencies often come to them with barely formed ideas that they bring to life. So if all Toy did was say "People can put their faces on elves and the elves dance"- well gee whiz, I know Mr. Draper wouldn't think that was much of an idea.
Maybe EVB had more of an input into the creation than you realize? And you do have to admit that the tone of the search ad is more than a bit defensive.
Posted by: Peggy Olsen | Nov 13, 2008 9:46:32 PM
interesting debate.
but the real question here is: who would have been on the hook if none of the 20 websites took off? who would have had to take that awkward phone call? and the answer to that question is decidedly NOT EVB.
the answer to that question is Toy. Toy's idea, Toy's responsibility. Ergo, Toy gets the lion's share of the credit.
I'm not sure EVB et al quite get that bit.
I've had directors save the day many a time. and they got their due credit. But ultimately it wasn't their relationship, it wasn't their responsibility. they could walk away. I couldn't. and therein lies ye olde rubbe.
Posted by: an ethicist | Nov 13, 2008 11:02:03 PM
i'm in favor of meritocracy and transparency. our digital agency freedom + partners are just finishing up a 2-site campaign with Mono for Herman Miller. It's been what true collaborations should be between Agency and Digital on behalf of Client. Their "ideas" and "concepts" turned into specific plans and production during intense collaboration. and we all want everyone to know that it was us together. mono and freedom + partners.
plus, will "traditional" agencies keep owning relationships across the board? is it far-fetched to imagine Nike going with R/GA as their AOR? is it far-fetched for Kellogg's brands to have Digital AORs collaborate directory with Leo Burnett? Sit at the table together, both on behalf of Frosted Flakes, one group not more important than the other? It's gonna happen. This isn't the dawn of advertising anymore. It's the New Dawn.
with reference to "barely formed ideas" coming to our shops in most cases (I'd say 80%)... those are the good scenarios! how about "ideas" that don't work, are inconsistent with usabilility, technical limitations, etc. put forth by "creative directors" and "art directors" who have very little to no experience in the medium, and pompously shove turds down our throats and then get pissed when they can't be polished ... conceiving, designing, and developing and producing digital campaigns ain't photography and it ain't shooting and editing ... it's a shame and a flaw in keeping the best interests of the Clients/Brands that the Digital can "just walk away". EVB should Office Max's Digital AOR and work with Toy, and Office Max to market the Brand consistently over a nice chunk of time, not hit and run.
and are there really "so many" of us out there capable of delivering the very best? guess it depends on your standards.
Posted by: mark ferdman | Nov 14, 2008 12:30:10 AM
is it far-fetched to imagine Nike going with R/GA as their AOR?>>>>
yes it is. people still watch tv, listen to the radio, drive past billboards and read dead trees.
digital specialists should remember that online is only a part of a bigger picture.
Posted by: A. Prinze | Nov 14, 2008 8:21:27 AM
@mark
its not farfetched for the likes of RGA to assume to the lead agency Its already happening. But RGA and EVB (and Big Spaceship and the other SODA members) aren't like RGA. the critical difference is they're production companies that want to be agencies. They use production engagements as a doorway into claiming a larger role. This is what bothers me most about the whining. You don't see film production companies trying to be agencies. They're happy doing their craft.
Posted by: Allis | Nov 14, 2008 4:00:20 PM
I pretty much agree with GetOverIt, in general terms. The 'plusing' of an idea helps, and they should def get credit for plusing it. But the original big idea is always the gold bar, so the one who had the original idea is always the most important in the mix and should get the original credit.
Posted by: Tim | Nov 14, 2008 5:21:39 PM
couldn't agree more that Spaceship and SoDA members are not R/GA ... EVB getting closer after getting acquired ... AKQA certainly is right there with R/GA ...
people still watch tv, listen to radio and drive past billboards (which will undoubtedly be ubiquitously digital by next week) .. a little bit.
online/digital/mobile whatever you want to call it isn't only "part of the picture ..." but where the picture begins ... and if agencies don't get that and have little to no experience in this medium after 10 years and have no respect for us so-called "production companies" it's bad for clients and brands and the whole industry. the agencies are so damn insecure. and they should be.
we are not "production companies" ... forget about these old terms that apply to old ways ... we do not make TV commercials ... we build brands and communicate for them using all types of new and improved means that we totally get and you don't.
get out of the way if you can't lend your hand, cause the times ... they have changed.
Posted by: mark ferdman | Nov 14, 2008 5:55:09 PM
So..uploading your face on a bunch of dancing elves is now an "idea" everyone's clamoring to be associated with. No wonder our business is in the shitter.
Posted by: FannieMae | Nov 14, 2008 5:59:20 PM
The reality is that Traditional is a part of Digital now. It's just increasing the playing field for creatives who know how to think up big ideas. Digital companies don't understand that their days are number functioning as production companies. Trying to claim extensive credit for conceptual work will never get them anywhere as we all know they don't deserve that type of creidt. The Parent Co's are going to buy you or dominate you if you don't start hiring Creatives who understand how to guide and build a Brand conceptually. Those creatives dominate the Traditional side, not the digital side. It's time to wake up Digi's.
Posted by: simple | Nov 14, 2008 6:29:28 PM
people still watch tv, listen to radio and drive past billboards (which will undoubtedly be ubiquitously digital by next week) .. a little bit>>>
actually no mark, they still do it a lot. a whole lot. a real whole lot. look at the actual figures. get real. the days of digital folks dazzling everyone with their mysterious online voodoo are long gone. we all get it now. and being melodramatic about it got old back in 2004.
and in my experience, and i have more than most, digital would-be agencies are still nothing more than production wrists. even the ones you read about all the time. yes. those.
they haven't a clue about branding. they're digital geeks. and that's great! that's their natural role. don't fight it. they do that well.
god only knows where things are going to evolve ultimately, but clients aren't going to give their biz to them any more than they would give it to a commercial production company.
look at crispin porter. that's the model. do that. if you can. bet you can't!
Posted by: A. Prinze | Nov 15, 2008 12:58:53 AM
from my perspective of them, yes, crispin is the model. few "digi agencies" will become Crispin. but some will. and some "traditional" will collapse.
it's not about Digital or Traditional. It is about building brands. All these arguments are to the extreme. Their are plenty of Traditional that totally get it (Goodby, etc) and there are plenty of Digis that get branding, c'mon, visualizing the Digis as all computer geeks incapable of understanding branding and marketing is a narrow, and very wrong view.
Clients are going to give their money to the groups that are capable of building their brands today and into the future.
The Digis know and have experience in the "new stuff", but don't know lots about other areas necessary to run and agency on behalf of their clients ... media, research, strategy, etc ... but with the right backing and support some will make efforts to evolve in these areas. They'll become the "new" agencies.
The Traditionals know and have experience in the "old" stuff and are frantically trying to get up to speed in Digital. They're doing so in a controlling, scared, paranoid fashion. ... but with the right leadership and confidence they will make better and more open efforts to working with the brands they support and Digi "specialists" in a much more open and honest way ... these also will become the "new" agencies.
A lot of whining coming from both sides of the fence. As the next generation of CMO's turns over ... who will they want to work with? Leo Burnett? JWT? ... Goodby? Crispin? ... R/GA? AKQA? ... StrawberryFrog? Anomaly? ... Spaceship? Barbarians? Firstborn? ... time will tell ... any of these shops might skyrocket, and surely some will fade away.
It's still a great time and a great business. For everyone in it. Would be nice to lighten up and make it fun like it's supposed to be. Isn't that why we all work in this industry?
Posted by: mark ferdman | Nov 15, 2008 10:52:22 AM
I would put RGA and AKQA in the same camp as the production companies. RGA is not an idea shop. I worked there are a writer for 3 years, I know. They didn't come up with Nike Plus. AKQA did not come up with the Halo campaign. Both digital shops were asked to execute. They did a stellar job executing but did not have the idea or sell the idea. The problem is many digital creatives think execution is idea.
Posted by: JP | Nov 15, 2008 11:06:42 AM
who came up with Nike Plus and what were the specifics of "the idea"? ... and if Nike hired R/GA to come up with "the idea" instead of W+K or whomever did ... you really think R/GA would be incapable of coming up with "the idea" for Nike Plus? You don't think a company as well-funded and already structurally sound as R/GA or AKQA can create a another arm of the organization chart to compete directly with what W+K is offering? The model of "the idea" and then go get it done by other guys ... TV ... it is just not the same model anymore.
Adjust. Your clients will catch on soon, and the best and brightest digital shops will stop doing your work for peanuts while you get all the glory. They'll demand the same value for their thinking, innovation and know-how that you currently claim to bring to your clients in this space. And the CMOs will want to start to hear things, think, and execute directly with the experts instead of being hidden from them by a layer of smoke and mirrors and misinformation, and buzz words, and needless and reckless obnoxious overspending.
Posted by: mark ferdman | Nov 15, 2008 11:56:31 AM
and if Nike hired R/GA to come up with "the idea" instead of W+K or whomever did ... you really think R/GA would be incapable of coming up with "the idea" for Nike Plus?>>>>
ah, but they (R/GA) didn't come up with the Nike idea did they? they (merely) executed the idea. and that's the point. just as the barbarian group didn't come up with Subservient Chicken. crispin did. but they were all too happy to show up at the award shows and conferences and imply that they did. and only too happy to spout self-serving BS about the end of the "traditional agency" and TV and anything else they weren't particularly good at. much like you're doing here mark.
95% of everything, including digital agencies/production companies, is complete shite and it has ever been thus. the wheat is in the process of being sorted from the chaff. coming up with big ideas is a bitch. executing them less so.
the internet is no longer a mystery to anyone with a brain. the era of the digital snake oil salesman is over.
Posted by: A. Prinze | Nov 15, 2008 5:02:04 PM
'Traditional' is really becoming anything but. It's more like agency plus Vendor. That's not to say a vendor isn't extremely important (look at production for print and film), it's just that what you call traditional won't really be in the next few years.
The conceptual talent happens to be at the more 'traditional' agencies right now, but it's bleeding over on both sides. Traditional shops are beefing up with some very great integrated talent, and those who were typically vendors are starting to hire better conceptual thinkers. Eventually, it will merge.
But when you ask any top person out of ad school, new media, or art school where they want to go - it's the place where they can do real 360° or big ideas. Not just a TV spot, but not just a fcking website or ringtone either.
It's getting much broader, and yes, we need more specialists...but the conceptual, all-around thinkers are becoming the ones that are more highly valued than anyone out there, And again, right now, those all-arounders are, for the most part, at the agencies.
I see a time, hopefully, when we pitch web or new media work just like we would scripts to top directors. And programming/interactive production people will be as well known for what they bring as directors or photographers.
Posted by: Mike | Nov 15, 2008 9:56:24 PM
Working with this thread a smidge more for dear Brian:
"But this same group had nothing to do with creation and eventually the selling of the concept. "
Oh really? How do you know that? In my decade in "production" I've helped those dear agencies "create" and "sell" more times than I can count.
It's painfully obvious to those with a knowledge of how things are working right now that the agencies are claiming more than they do now.
Also, the luddite in me is just confused: How on earth is a good idea worth anything? We've all had a million of them since we were kids. What's an idea without action?
Posted by: Rick | Nov 17, 2008 5:00:51 AM
What if we consider that the big agencies, who come up with these "big ideas", know that at some point they are going to lean on a smaller digital shop to convert that idea into the web.
In the same decade as Rick, I have also experienced many situations where I had to personally step in and explain to the agency's client what exactly is going on and how we were going to handle their brand on the web. We never got paid extra for it.
I have been in situations where the idea was delivered but in its current form wouldn't be worth shit on the web and we would then sit and strategize as to how it would best be translated online. Granted this is our value added service yet it doesn't seem to warrant credit...
Digital shops rarely JUST do production work.
The idea is great but taking that idea and making it work online is greater.
Digital agencies are the gatekeepers right now because it is our ability to be nimble enough and experienced enough to know what works and how to execute it correctly.
Rick hit the mark, its the action not the idea that matters.
When agencies call 300 times a day freaking out because they have no clue how to educate their client as to where things are in the process of creating a complex internet application. As well as sweating it out and making the digital vendors life crazy during the project because of the lack of understanding of how something like this gets created and then when it launches taking all the credit.
In doing this the agency partner is just creating an atmosphere of no confidence the entire project and then when everything finally comes together (as we said it would) credit is then divvied up unfairly.
When a brand comes to an agency and says "translate what we got to advertising" the agency takes full credit in doing so.
When agencies come to digital shops and say "translate what we got to the web" all of a sudden the rules change.
Its very rare that an agency delivers an idea to a digital shop and it stays in that incarnation, there is always a new soul breathed into the nostrils of that idea by the digital shop.
When agencies are fully equipped with the right staff and ability to completely execute the digital portion of the campaign, then all the credit should go to them, otherwise as long as smaller digital production partners are involved credit needs to be distributed fairly.
Posted by: Craig | Nov 17, 2008 12:03:46 PM
craig,
agree there are plenty of idiots out there. and lots of trad. agency idiots with no clue about digital. no one is disputing that.
but the flip side of what you're saying is the idiot digital shop that says "it can't be done" simply because they can't do it. i've seen plenty of that too.
i'm sure there are cases where big agencies hand over creative and production duties to digital shops but never sufficiently credit them for creative. why? because it would make them look bad.
but in the instance under discussion here (elfyourself) it was Toy who came up with the idea of doing twenty holiday websites in the hope that one would stick. and one of them did. EVB were a production partner. And they're apparently bitching about not getting enough credit. They were credited as a production partner. that wasn't enough?
toy were literally the responsible ones here. not EVB. if EVB et al want to play with the big boys, then fine. go do it. but carping about credit is thinking small.
Posted by: A. Prinze | Nov 17, 2008 2:37:38 PM
The halo site was gorgeous. But the idea, diarama and music - the heart and soul of the campaign - was from McCann. AKQA turned those elements into a site and won a Lion and got lots of credit. So why the whining?
The HBO voyeur site was awesome, but BBDO came up with the idea, sold it in, and produced the films which were then used by Spaceship in their very sexy interface. They won awards and got credit. So why the whining?
I fail to see why digital shops are biting the hands that feed them.
Posted by: Ajax | Nov 17, 2008 4:11:20 PM
Ummm...just a point of fact: I don't see anywhere in the source for this discussion about EVB complaining about not getting credit. From the original post Toy complained about not getting credit and that it contravened the agreement for how accreditation would be handled for the project. The author was just calling them out on that when he saw the google ad.
One thing about Toy - they seem to get one element of the digital landscape: their ad got a lot of attention. At least in the ad community. Now whether or not they got any clients out of it is another question...
Posted by: whatsthat | Nov 18, 2008 3:39:42 AM
I'm sorry but JibJab did Elfyourself.
http://creativity-online.com/work/view?seed=871b5dd9
Posted by: Aht | Nov 18, 2008 7:15:18 PM
Realty check:
http://creativity-online.com/?action=news:article&newsId=132684§ionName=movers
Posted by: Digis idiots | Nov 20, 2008 12:32:04 PM
Aht:
JibJab "taking over" a project that was conceived by Toy and executed by EVB hardly means JibJab "did" ElfYourself. They may be "doing" the next version of it, but they did not "do" it.
Rick:
Barbarian is a production company. Get over it.
Posted by: Ideas win business | Nov 20, 2008 12:40:12 PM
http://www.unit9.com/archives/campaign_future_of_production/
Posted by: EasyNow | Nov 21, 2008 8:40:01 AM
RICKY,
We are a production company. Let it go already.
Posted by: Benji | Nov 21, 2008 5:43:43 PM
I see a lot of confusion, the problem is very simply solved:
Agencies want credit for the idea while production shops want credit for the execution.
How much of the concept is part of the execution? And how much of the execution is part of the concept?
Whomever is making decisions on this basis is missing the fundamental point that you really need a good symbiotic working relationship to bring it all toghether.
The big trouble is that at the moment many don't accept this division and try to take advantage of the different layers of digital know-how and digital ignorance to present themselves as everything to all people.
I know many production shops that talk about how much of an agency they are but have no idea what an agency really is. Likewise I know many agencies that state they are able to deliver any digital production but struggle with some of the basics.
I think we just need more transparency and to accept that there is a need for both sides of the equation.
As an agency you surely take a huge risk with respect to the client, who pays all the bills for a campaign. But as a production company you really must work hard to create an award winning site so that other agencies will consider calling you up for the next job.
Posted by: Yates Buckley | Nov 21, 2008 6:59:24 PM
what yates said.
Posted by: A. Prinze | Nov 22, 2008 10:41:56 AM
What I would like to see:
give an offline agency $1 million and a digital agency $1 million.
Have them both create an ad campaign then compare results - the work and the impact in the marketplace.
Then you'd start to get something that you could compare. Otherwise, you're all talking past each other.
Posted by: andrew | Mar 6, 2009 8:35:41 PM
