Steve Harris: Dishonesty is a terrible thing in an advertiser or an advertising agency
An interesting piece today on LinkedIn from The Brand Agency’s Chairman & CEO, Steve Harris…
Dishonesty is a terrible thing in an advertiser or an advertising agency. And when it is blatant, easily discoverable and in the public domain there has to be some question marks over the integrity and intelligence of the perpetrators.
A start-up Perth ad agency is falsely claiming to have produced a number of high profile campaigns that were actually produced by other Perth agencies. Yep, they’ve posted case studies on their web site for work they didn’t do and included a narrative about how “they” developed and delivered the work.
To be clear, I don’t have any issue with individuals who have worked on a client or campaign who then move agencies and choose to include their involvement in that work in their CV, portfolio, personal web site or even client credentials presentations. I do take issue with an agency passing off another agency’s work as their own when that agency never worked on the client.
It’s also worth noting that individuals rarely create work on their own. It usually involves a whole host of people from different areas. For individuals to claim the work as a solo effort and credit a new agency several years after the fact is disrespectful to their colleagues who all made contributions.
I’ve chosen not to name the agency at this stage, but it is pretty blatant when they actually say “we created” the campaign when the agency didn’t. They are even using images and material directly lifted from case study material produced by other agencies.
Worse still, the work by The Brand Agency featuring on their web site was pro bono for a not-for-profit organisation. The agency claiming the work is not only claiming The Brand Agency’s work as its own, it is claiming work that was done pro bono when it hasn’t contributed a minute of time or a cent of cash. It’s taking credit for another’s charity contribution to the community in which we live and work. Not very nice.
I’d welcome your feedback. Let’s discuss.
44 Comments
Maybe this is a wording issue, Steve? If they were to give credit to the agency in each case study and mentioned up-front of the work page that ‘this is the work our creatives have been involved in over the years’. Would that be acceptable?
I think if they were taking credit for my agency’s work, lawyers would be in play.
But the work has a disclaimer; ‘this was created by (creative) when they worked at (agency)’ or has this been added recently?
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”
Yes, added very recently as there was no credit yesterday morning.
I remember when Mike and Ronnie started Meerkats. They made a point of starting it from scratch. No case studies, no mention of clients they’d worked on. They just set the proposition, worked hard and hoped the reputation followed them. That’s the benchmark.
I hope Mr Harris’ first reaction was to make a pleasant call to the ‘unnamed’ agency and congratulate them on taking the brave step of setting up there own business and politely suggest that they may want to add some further credits to the case studies on their website.
Surely he would have done that before making a public statement in the hope there’s a pile-on the little guys.
It appears the work in question has disappeared from the site. Gone but not forgotten.
Big network agencies targeting an indie after losing a few clients. See this for what it is.
What it is is disrespectful to all of us planners, client service, design and production people that don’t behave like we are high and mighty.
Don’t try and spin this as anything other than an agency leader trying to protect his people and the work they do.
Shame on your tactics. I smell horseshit and significant, wild accusations in your comment!
Maybe try picking up the phone and calling the agency/ex-colleague next time?
I agree Steve. It doesn’t take much to say something like ‘as part of the team at The Brand we created…’ this won’t reflect badly on you as a creative, and it shows your ability to work collaboratively (as all campaigns are) for a great result.
Our work was also on the website, and I did ring and suggest it wasn’t the right thing to do. I don’t want this business to fail, just to do things in the right way. The case studies that were on the website (now removed) clearly said that the work was created by the agency. That’s just not true, and it’s not fair to the agencies or the teams who contributed to making that work.
Should an agency still showcase work once most of the team who worked on it has left?
Great idea! Let’s inform BBH to remove the 3 little pigs, BMF Tongue, Clems the Big Ad, WK Old Spice… oh hang, that’s a stupid idea. Enthusiasm retracted.
I’m ashamed to say I was initially excited by the thoughts of yet another Campaign Brief pile-on, but then I remembered these are real people with real careers and livelihoods on the line.
Everyone can agree the new kids certainly pushed the boundaries. They showed us their creativity packs a punch, but the way they presented it had a lot of cheek. I think it’s fair to say, as a new agency, we can chalk this blunder up to convenience and not maliciousness.
I’m also sure Steve wants the work credited to the right people and the right agency. We all took aim at Brand’s TourismWA Campaign, so we should remember to hold ourselves and our judgements to the same standard. No matter if our agency has a WPP in front of it or not.
The agency has removed the work from their website, and I’d like to invite Steve to do the same with his statement. Leave Campaign brief drama for another day.
I think you are spot on but the only thing is, is that these people have had two goes at it and managed to balls it up both times
@Food for thought…
I am not an expert but the Copyright is owned by the agency (or client, if they’ve sold it contractually) so it’s theirs to use and promote as much as they like – even if everyone that created the campaign no longer works there….
In any company people come and people go. It’s rarely a wholesale affair. There’s far more to the success of an agency than simply a creative, or two. For me it’s the residual nature of culture. It can create amazing things. It can shape the way relationships are formed inside and outside of a business. And it’s a large part of why clients old and new invest in a place. Because it’s part people, part practice, part invisible. It rubs off on people. Just walk the halls of any great football team and you’ll feel it – shall we ask them all to give back their trophies? Or allow only the winning goal scorer to come and collect them? In my experience anyone who thinks they sit above culture finds it hard to stick around. They become transient. A few years here, a few there. It’s usually an ego thing. They take the spoils of success with them as their own. Hard to blame them really. Ego is difficult to master even for the best of us.
This is the most engaging piece of work the Brand Agency has made in years!
This is hardly bullying. Steve is just protecting his people and his agency’s IP.
After this kind of horseplay, he’s more than entitled to publish a such a significant response.
…But doing this so publicly smells like the Big Dogs trying to squash the New Kids on the block
Nothing to do with big dogs vs new kids on the block. Steve and Gavin’s actions will benefit the smaller agencies in town way more than the big ones. Other smaller agencies won’t have to compete with misleading credentials anymore.
Steve is absolutely entitled to have his say on this. This is not bullying. Also remember it’s a couple of other larger agencies that have called in lawyers.
It’s complicated isn’t it. Usually the contract says agency owns the intellectual copyright, but the person or team who also thought of the idea feels like it is theirs, and the production team feels like they made it.
This feels ok to show work depending on how you word it. Also, this does come across like the big boys are starting to feel a little threatened.
By censoring comments you are just confirming the widely held view that you’re guided by the imperative to protect your mates. At least indicate when you have edited comments to do so. Anything less is dishonest.
If the pieces on their site had a caveat upfront saying it was individual work produced at X agency, I think it wouldn’t have caused a problem. School boy error. In a tiny market like Perth, small startups can eat into bigger agencies business especially when run by people who know what they’re doing. So yes, there probably is a little bit of fear out there but doesn’t excuse them from making this dick move. Learn from it, dust yourself off and come back harder.
Let’s hear from the ‘startup agency’ if we can. I’d love to hear their side. If they back themselves they should keep the web pages up.
Yes, stupid/ignorant of the guys not to credit stuff properly, but this is a shitty way to deal with it. It comes across as WPP punching way down and for me it reinforces every negative perception of how they operate as bullies in this market. The timing on the back of the Tourism debacle makes me think Steve is trying to get onto the highroad and this gave him the opportunity.
Gav, the original question was, had Steve (the author of this article and Linkedin post) called the guys and had he pre-warned them that this was going to go out so they could reconsider their approach with full disclosure.
@Let’s Bury the Hatchet is spot on.
The agency hasn’t been named or identified has it?
Steve and other agency leaders have every right to call this out.
Comments suggesting this is a response to feeling threatened, bullying, the big guy vs the little guy etc. are (poorly) trying to deflect some pretty misleading behaviour. Ad professionals should know better.
So, the agency in question was contacted several times and asked to take down their misleading/false case studies by TBA & WT. The agency refused to do so. Then the story finds its way to Campaign Brief and the agency removes the case studies within the hour. Not sure why we’re talking about it. Pretty clear who’s in the wrong here.
This vitriol is all a bit rich coming from the head of the same agency that outsourced the production of the Tourism WA campaign to an over East company (and post-prod to the Czech republic) – we all know the result and can only imagine the positive impact should it have been kept in the state. What’s more detrimental to the industry here: A startup that hasn’t credited their work properly or the biggest shop in the state actively steering work away from the industry it dominates?
Love how CB is only posting half the submitted comments to control the narrative in favour of his mates.
I agree that what the team did was inappropriate, listing work from another without credit.
I just don’t understand why you’ve taken the less mature path of solving this though. Social media posts? My high school children do the same!
These comments are not helping us prove we’re as good as other states, in fact reinforces why creatives feel the need to leave this “shoot first” state.
By sharing the Mumbrella article that outed the agency on LinkedIn, Harris and Baine have exposed their true intent and character. The agency responsible had removed the work, if this was your stated intent in writing this post, then why would you share the Mumbrella article. Clearly your intent is to destroy the agency. This is repugnant behaviour by two ‘leaders’ of our industry. These are real people’s real livelihoods, careers and families. I hope you are proud of yourselves. Gavin, I thought you were the ‘good one’, why you would hitch your wagon to Harris’ immoral agenda, I have no idea.
And Kim, yes, why the censorship? Worried that you won’t be invited on the Rotto booze cruises?
Yes it’s definitely wrong to expose using another agency’s work to promote your business. Everyone should be free to use other people’s work and claim it as their own. No consequences. Wake up please.
@Steve Harasses Don’t shoot the messenger. Your “censorship” comment is ridiculous. Especially in the context of Steve. Over the years we’ve had a few run ins but the great thing about Steve is that he rings you up with his side of the story if he is feeling aggrieved. We discuss. Agree to disagree and once a year we get to go over it again on a very nice boat trip to Rotto. Over the same time I have also had boozy lunches with the heads of every large agency in town (and 3 lunches with Significant Other).
For your information and @Kim Controller’s I have a lot of “mates” and since we launched in 1984 we have strongly supported every agency start up (mates or acquaintances) that has sought our support. Ironically, we copped a whole lot of flak recently after supporting Significant Other’s launch and their early publicity through this year. Did we post a story on the split when Luke left to go to Marketforce? Why not? because Luke and Matt are both good guys and these things happen.
FYI there are only 11 comments that are not approved: 4 are ugly personal attacks on the character of the owners of the start up; 1 questions Steve’s parentage; and 6 are ‘taking the piss’ or flippant one liners including one from each of you suggesting it’s all a ploy to change the narrative before PADC and Steve as the poster boy for Honesty (I did laugh though).
Finally, I can’t believe you are calling out Gavin Bain, who for years has praised just about every good piece of work that is created by his competitors – and put his name to the comment. He even sent Matt Wilson up on his own to collect Wunderman Thompson’s awards at the Campaign Brief Awards in June. Gavin is definitely one of the ‘good ones’.
Ok then Kim, maybe Steve would like to explain why he chose to share the Mumbrella article that outed the agency on LinkedIn AFTER they had taken the work down?
Steve, you wanted a conversation; converse away.
I had nothing but the utmost respect for Gav until this – but you lie with WPP you wake up with fleas.
And for the record I think the startup was completely wrong to publish the work the way they did. But Harris’ handling of it has completely lacked class.
The individuals did this work and are some of the most talented creatives going around. Why is that being questioned and refuted? They may have not attributed it properly – but they then tried to rectify it. This level of orchestrated attack is ugly.
Plenty of calls were made early on but nothing was done. They only changed it after the mumbrella article came out. The individuals were part of a TEAM that did the work. No credit was given to anyone else but themselves.
Following the posts, media releases and commentary, I struggle to reconcile how the unreferenced work displayed on the agency’s website equates to this treatment? As someone who’s worked in this industry for a considerable amount of time, and an advocate for mental health, bearing witness to the comments made by industry leaders – Steve, Gavin, Melanie – and the responses made by our industry peers, I can truly say that I have never been more ashamed to call this the industry, in which I work.
Agencies are happy to use platforms like these to exploit how they “support” the mental health of their employees and industry but in moments where you hope to see this sentiment realised, we see nothing but a pile-on approach to people who have to live with the affects that these statements have to their mental wellbeing. While this agency did not take the right approach to featuring work done at prior agencies on their website, I would like to challenge these WPP heads and ask the question – was it worth it? Knowing the impact that this may have had to people on the receiving end? Could this have been done differently?
Wildlings was called about this last Monday. It could’ve been solved there and then. If they decided to drag this out, then whose fault is it? Also, same issue with SOCA in the past, and calls were made then too with nothing solved.
Are you saying these industry leaders should not protect their company and employees because someone else decided to do something sketchy and not give the proper credit? How do you think those teams feel? Maybe Wildlings should’ve thought about that?
It’s easy to blame the entire WPP team – but maybe think about the other companies whose work were uncredited too? I don’t see you naming them and their leaders.
Although I don’t agree with what he and his business partners have done, I do feel for Matt, as he’s become the public name and face of this mess. That’s not fair, as there are other senior creatives and suits involved who are equally as responsible for claiming the work in question as Wildling’s
Given H&H had been using uncredited MF work for years, I agree @Scapegoat.