A little over two months ago, we released the video, "Entrepreneurs can change the world" to spark a movement to help turnaround the economy, remind entrepreneurs why they started out in the first place, and inspire others to go out there and realize their dreams. As an entrepreneur who serves other entrepreneurs, I hear stories about growth each day: how people went out and offered new products and services, created jobs, and used their entrepreneurial passion to make a difference.
Our goal with the video wasn't to generate more sales. Instead, right from the start, our success metrics were: 'number of video views', and 'comments and ratings' (both on YouTube and other social sites). We also released all of the data about our campaign so that other entrepreneurs could use it as an opportunity to learn about this kind of unique approach, and the costs involved. In other words, we made the entire project (and our strategy) transparent. With just under 200,000 views, over 200 comments and 575 ratings on YouTube, the response has been truly amazing.
As I've described in previous posts, tremendous effort was spent by talented individuals (not large agencies) to create an authentic and inspirational message with words and design, and also music--we even had an original score created by Carly Comando in order to give the video a fresh sound. It turned out great, and the video's received a huge, positive response.
Imagine my great surprise then, just a few days ago, when I got phone calls and emails from people asking if Grasshopper had done a TV commercial with American Express. People were telling me they had heard "the song from the Grasshopper video" on TV, and I had to explain that, no, Grasshopper had not partnered with AmEx, or permitted them to use any of the elements of our campaign. It wasn't until a couple of days later when I was watching the news that I heard music very similar to Carly Comando's score emanating from the TV. I ran to check it out and sure enough, it was the AmEx ad everyone was telling me about. As I later found out, not only was the music the similar, but so were the words and overall message.
After a little research, I discovered that Ogilvy & Mather was American Express' ad agency. I then researched a lot more and discovered that Ogilvy & Mather had visited the Grasshopper website page regarding our campaign multiple times prior to the release of the American Express ad on TV (thank you, Google Analytics). I reached out to the video's producer and writer, Sonja Jacob. She also checked her site analytics and found that Ogilvy & Mather had visited her site multiple times. And can you guess which page they spent the most time on? Yup, you got it--the page where she discussed her work with Grasshopper and displayed the video. Curious.
It's important to note that the amount of time Ogilvy & Mather spent on our website is very high. Below are the Google Analytics reports from both websites for May 1st to July 26th. As a result of this data I had to conclude that at minimum, Ogilvy was aware of what we created (and that is the absolute minimum you can conclude--although you can extrapolate much more). With site analytics to tell the story, at the very least one can say that it wasn't just a coincidence that American Express came out with an ad that sounded a lot like ours only two months after our video was released.
You might also want to listen to the radio ads The Cultivated Word created for the movement, which were also on Sonja's website. I mean, you might as well--Ogilvy & Mather definitely checked them out while they were there.
It bothers me that a very large ad agency would "borrow" from not one entrepreneurial company (Grasshopper) but also an independent communications professional we hired to produce a video. But what bothers me more is that the message is being used for direct commercial gain by AmEx to promote another venture of theirs, OPEN Forum. Obviously, we sell a product at Grasshopper, but the purpose of the video was to motivate entrepreneurs--hell, anyone--to go out and do something, make a difference.
This video was never created so that we could monopolize the message, "entrepreneurs can change the world," but there are certainly lots of ways to get this message across without replicating someone else's campaign (especially if you have the resources of Ogilvy & Mather). After all, we were open to sharing the video. In fact, we even released it under the Creative Commons license so anyone could download it, show it at conferences, company meetings or anything else. What's more, we removed our branding almost entirely so that people could just use the video to motivate people. Instead, a very large ad agency decided it would be easier to just "borrow" the feel of our messaging, and not even engage in a partnership that would truly help entrepreneurs (there are definitely ways to do this, American Express).
End result? We're not whining about Ogilvy's usage of our message, we just think it's kind of lame for a big ad agency to come in and take messaging from an entrepreneurial company. Not holding people accountable for their actions is what has put our society in the turmoil we're in today, and I think Ogilvy & Mather should be held accountable, too. Yes, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," but I think it might have been more authentic if Ogilvy & Mather had just come up with their own campaign. Moreover, it would've been cool if AmEx had considered a partnership with us to help entrepreneurs, or raise awareness on an even greater level of how entrepreneurs really can change the world, without using someone else's original ideas. (AmEx execs, if you're reading this, give me a call.)
All of the data is here. Draw your own conclusions. Either way, I hope you'll consider spreading the word about the video that inspired it all, "Entrepreneurs can change the world," as well as the important message that we really are capable of turning the country, and the world, around.
Inspiring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well David - You and Sonja know I am a massive fan of her video. I tweeted about it and think it's an inspiration. While I don't see extreme degree of overlap in the two video clips (I see yours much more about youth and idealism and entrepreneurship, and Ogilvy's about entrepreneurs healing the economy), the web stats are quite surprising. This is a tough one. Ogilvy could spend time inspecting things they consider creative just to keep up best practices. Anyway, I know Warren Brown in the Am Ex video, and I know people at Amex and Ogilvy so let me know if you want some doors open there. If what you say is true, the right thing to do - given Amex's support of small business and women entrepreneurs - would have been to hire Sonja to help on the project. I like our attorney, Tenley Carp's, saying "trust, but verify."
Thanks for the comments, the idea of the post is to allow each person to draw their own conclusion. I want to hear what people have to say. Happy to see this forwarded to anyone at Ogilvy or Amex, we have done the same.
David Ogilvy would be sad to learn that his ad agency has lost its ability to be creative. Pure plagiarism...
Hmmm.. I just saw this on tv. hard say they have an original concept. What gets me is this on their site
Unsolicited Ideas:
In order to protect both Ogilvy and its clients, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide cannot accept or consider any unsolicited ideas; therefore, we will not reply to any such submission.
--from the contact us page. I won't do them justice and link back.
I think David said it best with "David Ogilvy" would be rolling in his grave right now. I hope Amex get wind of what they did. Unfortunately the corp types will not give a crap. This is norm for them and why they will never be us. They don't give a crap, no matter what they or their commercials say. What you did was great Dave. Know that, Amex nor Ogilvy can take that from you or your team.
At least you have the satisfaction of knowing that yours is infinitely better than the bland Ogilvy imitation.
Thanks, it is too bad but my goal is just to get the word out there and inspire entrepreneurs.
As someone that does a lot of composing for commercials and media, I find the direction both of these pieces take independently of one another to be very natural given the content and mood of each. That is to say: rather than one being influenced by another, I think they simply share a common precursor. Just for hypothetical purposes, and not to imply that it should or will come to this - the first thing a media lawyer or musicologist would do in court is identify and exhibit the hundreds of pieces that were created before these that share as many similarities to either.
Excellent point and we just put the data out there so each can draw their own conclusion. I am sure there are many legal ways to argue either "side" but that is not our goal.
I appreciate your comparison as someone who has much more experience than I ever will with music and commercial projects with music.
Here's a video that women's non-profit, Count Me In had developed for their Make Mine a Million program about a year or so ago. Unfortunately all I could find was the clip from a recent Make Mine a Million event as they screen it during the general session. It used to be up on their website (www.makemineamillion.org)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDwVfy0zjAo
"...our success metrics were: 'number of video views', and 'comments and ratings'"
Typical of a traditional agency or beginners at web analytics to use metrics without a predetermined goal to truly measure success by. That way it's just a value that is perceived to be good, not if they did or by how much they actually achieved or exceeded their goal by.
Also, "video views"? Really? A bit ambitious, don't you think? How about "videos finished vs started" then you would actually be able to tell how many people actually heard your message vs those that turned you off. And that would be very useful in not only understanding your audience, but how well "you" actually did your job.
Sorry O&M you still haven't haven't caught on to the true use and power of analytics.
Hate to be the naysayer, but...
Firstly, the American Express "OPEN" campaign for small business entrepreneurs has been running for almost a decade now. To claim that they copied your idea of marketing specifically to entrepreneurs is patently absurd.
As for this specific spot:
The visuals and overall art direction couldn't be more different. Yours is entirely graphical and typographically driven. Theirs uses no typography all, and is a live-shoot with voiceover.
Except for a very thin common thread about the recession, there is little to no common ground in the messaging... and god knows, nobody but *YOU* is marketing a recession message to small businesses right now. Right? You invented that message. Give me a break.
Your ad is focused on immigrants and first time small business owners. The concepts for the two ads couldn't be more different. Yours is an aspirational/inspirational public service style message. Theirs is a corporate communication. Yours appears to be targeting exclusively mom-and-pop run small businesses. Theirs briefly mentions little main-street shops, but is mostly directed at small enterprises (companies that have fewer than maybe a hundred employees, but where the owners are most likely millionaires).
Even to claim any similarity in the music is a stretch-- Well, um, I guess they both have a piano. Yours has a piano playing solo, at the same tempo throughout. Theirs begins with a solo piano which builds to a symphonic crescendo with violins and other accompaniment.
As to Ogilvy traffic on your servers. Meh. So what. Ogilvy has almost 200 offices globally and thousands and thousands of employees worldwide. Though it actually wouldn't surprise me at all if Ogilvy's American Express account team may have seen your messaging. It is, after all, their job to have their finger on the pulse of communications to entrepreneurs.
However, it is worth pointing out that the American Express account is not entirely in the hands of Ogilvy. It is actually split between two agencies: Ogilvy and Digitas, so there is a 50/50 chance you're barking up the wrong tree, anyway.
Let me point out that I've spent enough time in the advertising world, and I'm jaded enough to know that ideas get lifted all the time. Do a little Google searching and you will see that there are many blogs and websites dedicated to the matter. I guarantee you, your comparison is so flimsy it would never even be considered for inclusion.
Also, to be candid with you, I like your piece better than the American Express spot, so it's a shame that you're making such a to-do about the comparison. But then, perhaps the faux controversy you are spinning is, I highly suspect, generating an appreciable amount of traffic to your website (it is, after all, how I found you). So, um, kudos to you for the PR win... I guess.
In full disclosure -- In the past I have worked for Ogilvy, and I have even once art directed a TV commercial for American Express (AmEx personal Gold Card, not B2B and not OPEN). That was all several years ago and neither are currently clients of mine. But the experience does enlighten me to the time it takes for a TV spot at such an agency (and for such a client) to go from concept to media-rotation. On an account of that kind, anywhere from three to six months.
Gotta agree with Chris Grayson. The rip-off claim is extremely tenuous. Open has been advertising to small-business owners and entrepreneurs for years, their messaging has a different feel and texture than yours, and the music only bears a superficial resemblance to yours.
I ended up here because of a tweet from a friend who also warned about using the creative commons license. I thought he meant using CC-licensed materials like backing music from ccmixter.org (which I've used in the past). But the CC license for your video requires attribution and prohibits derivative works, meaning that if Ogilvy and Mather had really ripped you off as you claim, you'd have a nice law suit against them.
Instead you're creating a tempest in a teapot over a superficial resemblance and prompting people to spread FUD about the Creative Commons. You are getting attention and there are people who will side with you, but your accusations and the fallout coming from them leave an extremely bad taste in my mouth.
When I was in sales, we shopped the competition. Take it as a compliment that Ogilvy and Mather considered you worth looking at. But they didn't steal from you.
Did O&M borrow the idea? Or just one starved-for-ideas writer or art director? You can't assume that anyone above the front-line creatives knows where the idea originated. Jumping on O&M as if this were an orchestrated corporate plot seems silly. And while this seems to cross the uncool line, we all know that agency creatives are Googling for inspiration whenever they're stuck. I do it. You do it. I hope I haven't crossed the line from inspiration to outright theft for my clients, but we all know that looking to past ideas is common practice. Why else would we keep those stacks of annuals lying around?
Marko,
Great point about having meaningful metrics and since this the Grasshopper campaign was not done by an agency we had very specific metrics for the first 30 days. Would be happy to share data around some of the other things we tracked but for a campaign we had to have a success metric.
Chris,
Some great points and this is why we put the information out there and did not claim anything other than we felt it was similar based on feedback we got from others. I got two more emails this morning saying the same thing and they were about to ask until they saw the blog post and understood we were aware of it.
Agre totally Amex has been around a lot longer than us and they have been marketing to small business, and there are many companies that market to this segment. I do not think the fact the product has been around longer has anything to do with what we are saying. And as for Digitas, Amex uses many different firms at the end of the day, even if O&M subcontract to them so there is a chance this was done by neither of them. Maybe O&M should just clear up the matter and be clear who created it.
Greg,
Let me be clear about CC, I love it and never said otherwise. This is the reason we released the content under this license. This blog post and what might have happened with O&M has nothing to do with CC license.
Meh. Yes, the approach is different; yes, ideas get lifted all the time (and not just in advertising) but seriously, you can't tell me the music was accidental. It's true there is a long lead time for a 60 second spot, but swapping out the music doesn't take 3-6 months. It's in a different key than Carly Comando's "Chain Reaction" and the note progression is inverted, but the feel of the piece is exactly the same, and I don't believe it's an accident. When a company pays to produce and air a 60 second spot in prime time, someone at a level higher than "one starved-for-ideas writer or art director" has to sign off on it. More likely, they were already working on the spot and decided to use the momentum of the Grasshopper/Sonja Jacobs piece by giving it the same feel as this very successful, well-known viral video. Because if it were accidental, through serendipity or Jungian collective unconscious (which I do believe in,) if the true intention was to be creative and unique, they would have changed it after the release of "Entrepreneurs Can Change the World" on May 3rd. A simple change of music would have given the spot its own unique voice.
As someone who has spent an entire career helping entrepreneurs get their businesses off the ground, this bothers me for the same reason it bothers David Hauser. The little guys don't have the resources of an O&M or Digitas or American Express; they must rely solely on their creativity. The fact that the commercial is for something that is meant to serve these very same little guys, and then steals their spotlight is, at the very least, unsporting. Since the spot features small business owners in it, it would have been a simple matter to include or at least acknowledge the people from Grasshopper and/or The Cultured Word.
I refute your claim to similarity. It is similar in the fact that they are both simple songs. They are both piano arpeggios over a few chords to make a chord progression. Both required only a novice's composition skills to create. Not saying I'm better, or suggesting who would be better. Just saying that claiming two newbies ripped each other off is kinda silly.
Here is a close (still musical) analogy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
Refute away. To the untrained ear, there is a similarity. Reference the answer to a request on YouTube for the source of the music. The piece is incorrectly identified as "Chain Reaction," the song from the Grasshopper video. http://bit.ly/PIOeo
Simplicity is not a quality to be derided. Some of the most memorable classical compositions are based on simple melodies. There is an elegance in simplicity- in art, in music, in life.
You're missing the point here. With all the music in the world available to a large agency, why choose something so similar?
Some great points and you hit it on the head, we wanted something simple and powerful. It was not easy to create and was done by a very talented artist.
Honestly, I think you company is the one at fault for poaching creative ideas.
Look at "the Girl Effect"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIvmE4_KMNw
If you replace it's talking points of disease and poverty with yours, of the failing economy, you have basically the same ad.
Even the execution of your "entrepreneur" video is ripped off, from The Kinetic Type Treatment to the music to the length.
Granted I don't have a slue of Google Analytics to back this argument up, but as a creative, it's pretty easy to tell when one idea is ripped off and repackaged.
You shouldn't cry foul before you're sure you're in the clear yourself.
Are you kidding me! You're (Grasshopper) claiming someone ripped you off? Well what about you guys blatantly ripping off Nike's Girll Effect http://www.girleffect.org/#/video/ You should be ashamed about raising a fuss about AmEx!
We have been very open about our influences from the Girl Effect video. Kinetic type has been around for a while and Girl Effect made it popular for sure. Shortly after that Starbucks created a TV ad and run it around election time. There have also been a few car companies that used kinetic type.
Your point is correct that many things influence us and that was one of them. We also worked with Carly Comando who created the music for the Everday video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B26asyGKDo). In working with her we did not replicate what was done by create something new.
play them both at once! creepy. and depressing, not uplifting! next time rip off tubular bells!
There are more similarities to the Girl Effect video than the AmEx one will ever have. You can't claim creative plagiarism by saying you used the same people. I know you didn't invent kinetic type, it's been around and was first popular in the 80s.
But simply allowing someone you're collaborating with to recycle an idea and execution doesn't exonerate you from allowing an altered clone to enter the public domain.
Worse though, is that you're suing AmEx for something you yourself are obviously guilty of.
And the wherewithal to rip off a non-profit's campaign, something someone worked tirelessly on for free? C'mon.
Just remember, the internet is a more impartial jury than one of your "peers" will ever be. And it's not bound to judge solely on evidence presented. People will find the truth no matter how you spin it.
I appreciate your comments, however you might want to read the post. We are not suing or even saying we would. Also the video I posted had nothing to do with Girl Effect and was a reference to the music and who created it. Nothing was recycled or cloned nor are we asking for exoneration from anything.
You are suing them, I was wrong about the court though. You're bringing the case to the court of public opinion.
If you're not taking legal action than it proves there is no validity to your claim. You want to make a fuss to get your name in the trade papers and that's just poor form.
Either do something about it, or shut up.
Meh. Seems like nothing to me. We all use influence to create. I don't see anything wrong here.
it's advertising and yes there are similarities but one (grasshopper) seems (IMO) to skew younger while the other (amex) is a bit more economy focused and a bit broader in scope.
Sure there are similarities, and the analytic data while valid offers little insight into what they were looking at your site for other than they were just visiting and checking it out.
I do assume (like you and others) that they were reflecting and getting creative insights from your execution but that's how this stuff is done in the ad world. I'd personally look at it as flattery and leave it that.
Albeit you are getting some major traction from the controversy that has surfaced from this (similar in scope to Ignited)...but it is what it is...Raising questions is good; however, (in this example specifically) a fruitless effort. for there are way too many variables for this to really illicit a concrete response and fly...
thanks for sharing...
PS i don't think ogilvy would be turning over in his grave - i think he would be smiling from his corner office because he got us all to talk about his client and your biz without spending a dime and lifting one finger!
it was me.
well the google stats were.
i was researching entreprenuers online for a uk based client and stumbled across your site. i work across a number of ogilvy clients and i am based in the uk. this amex work is handled from ny.
i liked your video so much i passed on internally, but not to the amex team, most of your hits seem to stem from the date of this mail and are from the uk.
of the similarities in the ads i can only say, as many of your posters have pointed out, they are not really that similar, open has been going for a long time, it takes more than afew months to get an ad like this through and the approach and message is pretty topical therefore an obvious subject to focus on.
this is my own personal view and does reflect that of the company or our clients. yada yada yada
all the best, i like your work.
giles