Agency.com pulls a Modernista! for Skittles
In the offline ad world, creatives are always quick to cry "rip-off." Pretty much everything strikes me as derivative of the Bible and Beowulf, but protecting the originality of "the idea" is hard-wired into ad culture. Does that translate into online? Agency.com has built a new site for Skittles that is pretty much a carbon copy of Modernista!'s much-lauded "un-site," which of course some claim is a rip-off of an earlier Zeus Jones site. The Skittles site is an interesting case study for a consumer goods company. Let's face it: Why would anyone go to a packaged-goods Web site? But nowadays, in social media, people are talking about all sorts of stuff. Agency.com gets that with a "chatter" link that pulls up the results of a "skittles" search on Twitter. It could be on to something. Does it really matter if Modernista or Zeus Jones got there first? —Posted by Brian Morrissey |
|
February 27, 2009 in Agency web sites, Candy, Modernista!, Morrissey, Skittles, Zeus Jones | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
http://flickr.com/photos/timtastic/3314012817/
Posted by: Tim | Feb 27, 2009 3:25:10 PM
does it really matter if someone got there first? i surely fucking hope so. seriously, who steals a fucking ad agency's website concept? they're just asking for it.
Posted by: fuck that | Feb 27, 2009 3:37:25 PM
Of course it matters. For a couple reasons at least:
1) Have some self-respect in your job. You're a creative, not an imitator. You get paid to come up with ideas, not just steal them.
2) If I'm a client and want a new idea, how do I know your agency will even be able to come up with something original if all you do is rip people off? I guarantee you Agency.com didn't charge the client less because they quickly stole an idea instead of spending time to come up with something new.
Of course it's Agency.com that'd do this. When the best you can do on your own is the "When we roll, we roll big!" Subway pitch video, you have to steal other people's ideas just to get business.
Posted by: MattM | Feb 27, 2009 4:00:28 PM
Matt M is right on! Right on baby!!! Earn it bi
'otch. Don't steal it. This also shows just how incredibly lame Chiat Day is. Tequila is supposedly the digital arm of the agency. The agency is supposedly a Media Arts Lab, that's what Lee Clow calls it, but one of their top creative clients doesn't even use them for digital? They use the crap Agency.com instead? Chiat is just a funny television agency at best.
Posted by: Todd | Feb 27, 2009 4:16:55 PM
Modernista should sue Skittles. What if someone stole the formula for Skittles candies and passed it off as their own? Would Mars Inc. let that go?
Posted by: Duhhh | Feb 27, 2009 4:17:17 PM
This site is probably going to give spontaneous orgasms to all the social media experts/gurus/ninjas out there, but what is it doing for the brand? Seriously, I can imagine the WTF?!? experience for non-skittles consumers who aren't hip enough to be in the social media echo chamber.
It's not marketing, it's a publicity stunt.
Also, what does this really say? "Skittles: Too lazy to create our own unique content"
Posted by: Hup | Feb 27, 2009 4:20:54 PM
I imagine everyone associated with the Agency.com subway video is giddy with relief. Agency.com has a new creative f-up to deal with.
Posted by: Almar | Feb 27, 2009 5:54:21 PM
What did you expect from an agency named agency.com?
Posted by: Unconcerned Citizen | Feb 27, 2009 6:28:24 PM
Do consumers going to the new Skittles experience care if it's a copy of experience for another brand? I think not. Especially if Skittles does it better or if it matches consumer's brand expectations of Skittles.
Back to work, people! ;)
Posted by: CitizenMe | Feb 27, 2009 6:28:41 PM
CitizenMe: does a comedy club audience care if a joke is ripped off if it makes them laugh? No, but it's still wrong.
Posted by: oat soda | Feb 27, 2009 7:49:19 PM
IT DOES NOT MATTER. Nobody owns ideas as there is not such thing as 'unique' in todays. Get over it!
Posted by: Relax | Feb 27, 2009 7:51:51 PM
"social media experts/gurus/ninjas" LMAO!!! I love it. Those social media dorks don't even realize they don't get it.
Posted by: Toby | Feb 28, 2009 1:37:50 PM
In a world where social media has become king in tween marketing, why are you all so fucking surprised that this idea would be appropriated to a candy brand.
Problem I see with it is that they had no fun with it. If twitter is the only thing that skittle's fans get to do besides seeing a lame facebook page, I understand the criticism, but for being lame not for copying.
Posted by: Butch | Mar 1, 2009 10:35:46 AM
Why doesn't Modernista sue the entire Web 2.0 dudes...wait that's us...well, shit, I'm not going to answer my phone anymore!!!
In all seriousness, why not apply the Modernista idea to a FMCG client??? Gawd know's unless you've worked on a client like this, you are always looking at innovative ways to engage with your audience when it's hard to create communities around 1 product. I know that's our job to come up with ideas, when working in digital - we are coming up with ideas within web 2.0.
So, lets praise the site for trying to look at alternatives to what will eventually become the norm for the structure of most websites post 2010...mark my words.
I don't mind being a tall poppy....
Posted by: TallPoppy | Mar 2, 2009 12:36:39 AM
There is no such thing as originality, just applying influences and ideas to your specific audience. What skittles have done is ground breaking because a) its the first FMCG product to take this approach and b) its much more in the public eye than modernista. Bring the mountain to mohammed and see what unfolds...
Posted by: On examination | Mar 2, 2009 8:41:29 AM
You silly creatives worry WAY too much about originality.
Posted by: Phill | Mar 2, 2009 9:52:47 AM
Re allocating social medias advances to innovate - isnt innovative. Social media should be used to relate to your consumers. it's been this way since the shit notion of web 2.0 poked it's head out.
This form of web will be around for a year or less, because it's cheap and the ground work has been laid.
all hail media buyers with no creativity.
Posted by: that guy | Mar 2, 2009 10:37:31 AM
Given the success of this publicity stunt, and the fact that Skittles as a brand has nothing whatsoever to do with social networking, MARS and Agency.com will undoubtedly get the credit for being the companies that proved that when it comes to generating a buzz by exploiting people's basic desire for 5 seconds of interweb fame ("look at me intarwebz, im on the front page of skittles.com"), it absolutely doesn't matter what kind of content is behind the publicity.
And whether it's "derivative" or not, this is a technique, not a work of art. Would it have made any sense for the first person to put a commercial on television to sue the second? Please.
Anyway let's be honest here. Creativity == hiding your sources. Case in point: The Matrix.
--Naomi
Posted by: Naomi Most | Mar 2, 2009 11:08:47 AM
If you like Modernista & the Skittles knock-off, you'll absolutely LOVE Brinista!
It's the first celebrity "mashout" and original Modernista parody.
Enjoy,
TL
P.S. I guess the folks at Modernista call this type of site a "light weight redirect filter" but damn if that's not a mouthful. I like to call it a "mashout" instead.
http://twitter.com/modernista/status/1269727513
Posted by: Todd Levy | Mar 2, 2009 1:21:40 PM
I Disagree, Modernista! doesn't own the content behind them if your talking about site models, their site is a framed site and the model is use content from another source behind their site. So what's original about that it was done in the 1990s and annoyed everyone and looked broken. Now you got Skittles which has a site that is more about integrating a social platform named twitter which is on the rise in use. I think it's a poor execution of the site but its original enough at least in comparison to Modernista!, neither of them owned the creative on their site so you cannot claim RIP, but take a look at my blog post for an updated full response http://www.advertisingbrandingetc.com/blog/?p=789
Posted by: Joseph Maguire | Mar 2, 2009 1:27:19 PM
I could really care less who did what first. As far as I'm concerned, skittles should be providing links to these outside websites anyways, and the only thing they cheated was the fans of the skittles brand who deserved an actual website.
Posted by: j.verhine | Mar 2, 2009 1:36:55 PM
Judging from the really unappetizing words I'm seeing posted on their site, I can't see a food brand sticking with this idea. Maybe they get the buzz they wanted and then just pull it down in a few days.
Posted by: Jeff Davis | Mar 2, 2009 1:49:54 PM
Agency.com had one task to accomplish. Help Skittles sell more Skittles. The client doesn't get anymore money in their pocket from being 'original' and Lord knows they don't need yet another beautiful outpost of a website to try to drive people to. So if there are already 6 million people on Twitter, 130 million on Facebook, 100+ million on You Tube, etc., then who is the real 'creative' marketer: The one who burns six figures to make an 'original' flash microsite, or the one who leverages technology to appeal to the biggest audience for the least amount of budget?
Posted by: Will Burrus | Mar 2, 2009 2:04:26 PM
Do you guys know anything about the psychology behind why advertising works? My word.
It doesn't matter what's being said about the product, only that the product image is being shown repeatedly whilst the recipient of the image is doing something they find fun. The more this happens, the more positive association the brand gets in people's brains.
In other words, BRAND LOGO (skittles) plus FUN ACTIVITY (interactive Twitter stunt) equals successful ad campaign.
--Naomi
Posted by: Naomi Most | Mar 2, 2009 4:22:05 PM
What blows me away is that the COPA rules for this site were so strict a few years ago. It would have been impossible to do this.
The skew was so young.
The content seems to be unfiltered. How the agency go them to drop their guard Ill never know. But best of luck.
Posted by: Valon | Mar 3, 2009 9:26:19 AM
Aw, c'mon. Dutch agency Dynamic Zone (www.dynamiczone.nl) did something very similar to this two years ago. Similar idea, different execution. They're not suing anyone as yet. And they shouldn't.
If there's anything agency.com should be chastized about, it's their lack of imagination. I don't mind that they took the principle and applied it to Skittles. I do mind that it's a dull carbon copy.
Posted by: Dylan | Mar 3, 2009 9:47:25 AM
Marketing idea for Mars. Pay strippers to change their name from "Crystal" to "Skittles."
Posted by: Ace | Mar 3, 2009 4:10:25 PM
The execution is extremely sloppy for such a high profile website. Theory aside - I can't move the damn widget! It's right over the content and I can't drag the bugger! For all their inline wizardry, if I click on a link that isn't part of their social experiment - it pops another window!? Why on earth? Just load it in the window like all the FB/YT/WP pages!
Also, what happens if you are too young (and your honest about your age in their age verification entry dialogue) - total lockdown! How to burn the next generation by agency.com! C'mon, they pushed so hard to sell the idea they forgot about the users. OMG - I just got locked down so they could tell me how to leave their site!!! I feel like I've been thrown back to the 90's with this site!
Posted by: Daniel | Mar 3, 2009 8:12:36 PM
well your all taking about it so surely its done the trick
Posted by: ben | Mar 4, 2009 7:20:25 AM
I guess if you are a good/honest creative you're pretty disappointed at Agency.com for the rip off and hoping that Modernista will do something about it.
In the other hand if you suck at what you do, you are pretty pleased to see someone else getting away with it, again.
Posted by: Rick | Mar 4, 2009 11:37:34 AM
Does it really matter if Modernista or Zeus Jones got there first?
Are you serious? Are you freaking serious? DOES IT MATTER WHO GOT THERE FIRST?
That's it, game over, let the talentless hacks hump the rotting corpse of an industry that once used to pride itself on originality. I'm pretty sure I remember an actual sense of shame in people finding out if you stole an idea or not, now it's either lauded or simply questioned
"Does it matter?"
It should. But it doesn't.
Posted by: John | Mar 5, 2009 10:56:14 AM
