Hasta La Creative!

A legal disagreement has taken shape involving current and former principals at Omelet, the “boutique Los Angeles creative shop” which lists AT&T, HBO, Microsoft, and others on its client list.

Omelet, which recently expanded its creative team with the hire of Leo Burnett/W+K/CP+B/Deutsch LA veteran Shannon McGlothin, is suing its former president and co-founder/chief content office Steven Amato. Or being sued by him, depending on who you ask.

Two things are clear:

• Amato, who wrote copy for Deutsch and served as ACD at TBWA for three years before launching Omelet more than 10 years ago, left the agency last Spring to launch his own LA-based shop called Contend (home page here). Mike Wallen, a one-time freelance CD and producer for Adult Swim, Fox Studios and other parties, replaced him in the chief content role back in October.
• Amato and current Omelet Chairman/CEO/one-time hedge fund manager Don Kurz, who joined Omelet in 2004, have a running disagreement.

Everything else looks like a classic case of he said/he said.

A source tells us that Amato is suing Kurz and his former employer for money owed to him, while Kurz says the equation is reversed: he and Omelet are suing Amato. For what? That’s not yet clear.

Here’s the quote from Kurz himself:

“Omelet is suing Contend and Steven Amato. We’re looking forward to a successful resolution.”

We were unable to reach Amato for comment today. But, in the absence of a settlement between the aggrieved parties, the story will almost certainly play out in Los Angeles County court in the months to come.

A British copywriter and journalist says he’s suing his local gym for “women-only hours,” intended to help females feel more comfortable while exercising. In a 1,300-word column published in the Daily Mail, Peter Lloyd argues that Kentish Town Sports Centre’s decision to exclude men and boys for 442 hours a year—while still charging them full price—is a sexist policy that sends a “toxic” message about males. Lloyd’s write-up is compelling and thought-provoking, even for those who might find his opinions whiny and insensitive. Although he lays out an array of complaints, he focuses on the fact that it’s simply unfair (and possibly illegal) to charge two different genders the same amount for different hours of service. He says he requested the gym offer one of three remedies: create male-only hours to compensate, charge men less per year or end the female-only hours. The gym reportedly declined, telling Lloyd in an email, “A report by the Women Sport and Fitness Foundation showed that a significant proportion of women (26 percent) ‘hate the way they look when they exercise.’” (A comment that seems perfectly timed with the debate over Dove’s “Real Beauty Sketches” this week.) In some of his less-diplomatic moments, Lloyd responds, “That's like trying to clean a dirty face by rubbing a mirror,” and “If these women have issues with their bodies, I truly sympathise—but it's their problem, not mine.” His column is generating praise from male advocacy groups in Britain and even here in America, but the aggresiveness of his tone could also be seen as an argument in favor of keeping guys out of the gym on occasion. Will he be part of the solution or part of the problem? Via Reddit.

Google, the leader in Search Engine technology, handles approximately 66% of all search engine traffic. So much, in fact, that when Michael Jackson died and his name spiked, Google thought that it was a coordinated attack.

Much like AT&T did two decades ago, Google is fighting back over anti-trust allegations although no formal investigation is underway.

Dana Wagner, the Googler known as “senior competition counsel” explains in the New York Times that “competition is just a click away.”

Google has been on the PR warpath, partially due to regulators watching its every move. Other tech companies such AT&T, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft suffered much of the same thing when it became apparent that there was no “real” competition. Google is clearly the leader in the search category, and it’s possible that the only “competition” may be from the US Government’s possible intervention. In November of 2008, the Justice Department killed a deal between Yahoo and Google due to concerns over market domination. But who is kidding who, right? Google already owns the market.

There are other investigations taking place. The Justice Department is investigating Google’s hiring practices and the Federal Trade Commission is researching the ties between the boards of both Google and Apple. But nothing’s been aimed at the heart of Google.

…unlike other technology giants in years past, Google has not been accused of anti-competitive tactics. But the investigations and carping from competitors and critics have Google fighting to dispel the notion that it has a lock on its market, even as it increases its share of search and online advertising.

However, Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, stated;

“Google search is an absolute must-have for every marketer in the world.”

Google’s lawyer, Mr. Wagner, agrees that the company is a great success. He also noted that the environment is turbulent and highly competitive. Further, he said that Google wasn’t looking for sympathy, but simply telling its side of the story.

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Account Coordinator. His passion is writing. Reach out and touch him: www.linkedin.com or www.twitter.com.

Craigslist is dropping the “erotic services” portion of it’s site due to pressure from impending lawsuits and a murder linked to the site.

Unfortunately, the fix is nothing more than lip service. The category will simply be renamed and Craigslist will charge an additional fee for its use. Additionally, Craigslist employees will monitor posts before they appear online, something for which Craigslist has been criticized since adult advertising on the site started. Police in numerous states have used Craigslist as a tool to set up prostitution ”stings” and the fact that sex is available on Craigslist is well-known. Is Craigslist worried?

Probably not. According to Craigslist attorney, Eric Brandfonbrener, appearing in federal court for a hearing on [an Illinois] lawsuit, told U.S. District Judge John Grady that the site would change to satisfy the lawsuit:

“My expectation is that it will be moot,” Brandfonbrener told the judge. [Illinois] attorney Daniel Gallagher said he remained skeptical. “They’ve made promises to attorneys general in the past,” Gallagher said, noting that
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had brokered an agreement with the site in November to crack down on prostitution ads after being contacted about several complaints about photographs depicting nudity. “I’m not going to take their word for it, we want to see action.”

The best thing to come out of this is that if you are searching for sex, AshleyMadison.com is now available! Ashley Madison is an adult service that encourages adults to have affairs, and their tagline says it all: Life is Short. Have an Affair.™ Unlike Craigslist, however, Ashley Madison guarantees that if you are not knocking boots, or at least hooking up by your 90-day anniversary, they’ll refund you $249.00 (the cost to join?). In April, Ashley Madison began advertising in Chicago, and although many US stations have refused to air their ads, some Chicago stations are running the spots. Ashley Madison’s newest innovation is that members can Have An Affair Anywhere, a mobile phone service that allows members to hook up while traveling.

But, a Guarantee! And to think of all money I wasted on drinks…

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Coordinator. His passion is writing, contributing to BMA as well as freelancing. He’d love to hear from you: linkedin.com/in/jefflouis or twitter.com/jlo0312.

Truth in advertising is, by some, considered an oxymoron. Like “deafening silence” or “clean coal.” Yet, each day commercials run that make outrageous claims, but nothing seems to be done about them. For instance, the ShamWow; the announcer pours a can of cola out on the table in a big pool. The camera cuts to the announcer as he asks, “Are you catching this camera-guy?” The scene cuts back to the table and half of the mess is mysteriously missing. 

The government agency in charge of false advertising is the Federal Trade Commission, and there are several pages on their website dedicated on spelling out what are, and are not, deceptive practices :

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• Advertisements cannot be unfair.

What makes an advertisement deceptive?

According to the FTC’s Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement – or omits information – that:

• Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• Is “material” – that is, important to a consumer’s decision to buy or use the product.

The FTC is also concerned with the roles that celebrity spokespeople play in selling products, and has instituted changes to “Tuides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” If a false claim is made by a celebrity, the FTC will hold the advertiser responsible for the misleading claim, but also expert and celebrity endorsers.

Additionally, celebs cannot state that they love bacon and have it everyday for breakfast when they’ve never eaten bacon, nor would consider it as food. The same is true for the “magical time” continuum on TV: there has to be a reasonable semblance to the the truth. If Joe’s Bleach states that a stain will be lifted in thirty minutes, the trials have to be relatively close to this timeframe (ie, it can’t take a day). Celebrities will also be liable for what they do not say; if a professional  baseball player shows up on a talk show and plugs a product, he has to state that he is a paid sponsor for the product. 

With the proliferation of commercials on TV, it’s apparent that the FTC cannot enforce these statutes; however, Kellogg’s Cereal recently settled out of court due to claims that Frosted Mini Wheats boosted a child’s attention span by 20 percent versus children that did not eat breakfast at all.

Jeff Louis: Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Coordinator. His passion is writing, contributing to BMA as well as freelancing. He’d love to hear from you: linkedin.com/in/jefflouis or twitter.com/jlo0312..

Coca Cola, invented in the late 19th century and marketed as a “cure-all” for diseases like morphine addiction, dyspepsia, neurasthenia, headache, and impotence has come a long way in a century. A friend once told me that Coke’s special formula used cocaine. Which is true, although at the time I called him a “lying pooh-pooh head.” In fact, a single glass of Coke contained nine milligrams of blow. The nice thing? No crusty white boogers or mirror checks before going outside. ‘Cola’ was spawned from the Kola nut, which added caffeine to the mix. It’s a wonder Ritalin wasn’t invented sooner.

One thing fair to assume in a company the size of Coke; upper management probably doesn’t have a clue about work in the trenches. So, when a plant worker at a Coke bottling plant in Columbia was gunned down for trying to unionize, no one upstairs was any wiser. (It was actually seven murders…). Well, this week that all changes.

Activist organization “The Campaign to Stop Killer Coke” plans a negative PR blitz in Atlanta against the beverage giant. The group, which claims Atlanta-based The Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) is guilty of labor, human rights and environmental abuses, will have this week a mobile billboard truck on metro Atlanta streets campaigning against Coke’s alleged abuses. One billboard says “Unthinkable! Undrinkable! Murders in Colombia, Child Labor in El Salvador, Stealing and Polluting Water in India, El Salvador and Mexico.” A second billboard says “Killer-Cola: The Drink that Represses!”

Coca Cola’s response, stunned that a PR blitz consists of a single billboard, has called an agency review.

Jeff Louis is a Strategic Media Planner, Project Manager, and New Business Coordinator. His passion is writing, contributing to BMA as well as freelancing. He’d love to hear from you: www.linkedin.com/in/jefflouis or on twitter @jlo0312.

In case you missed it, Al Pacino was sporting a watch, a designer watch from Tutima which many viewers would hardly notice. Glued on to the plot (to which Al Pacino turned out to be the bad guy in the end), there were strings attached as far as the advertising premiums agreed upon by both parties, Millenium Films and Tutima USA. Apparently, the latter failed to deliver and both of them may see each other in court.

Millennium Films filed a lawsuit against watch manufacturers Tutima USA at Los Angeles County Superior Court claiming that they didn’t deliver on the agreed deal. According to the production company this promotional partnership would see Tutima pay $50,000 for a three second shot of the watch, a Tutima Flieger Chronograph F2 in the film and spend $1 million on advertising. They claim that neither of these were forthcoming, despite them delivering the lingering shot of the watch in their 2008 cop drama.

(Source) TMZ

The coal industry may have found a good alternative as far as prying away from the carbon emission issues with its so-called clean coal. While environmentalists are still figuring out how these clean coals are made and would function, it is apparent that advertising clean coal will become entirely aggressive to save the faltering coal industry from the said new pollution standards pegged to save the environment from pollution and unwanted carbon emissions.

the concept of “clean coal” is somewhat nebulous – it encompasses a number of techniques for reducing pollution by chemically washing coal or capturing and storing emissions – and the most effective technology, carbon sequestration, is still 10-15 years from being built for American plants.

Rest assured there are still loopholes surrounding the clean coal concept. Surely further studies will be presented to either justify or take down this seemingly masked concept that the coal industry is undertaking right now.

(Source) Washington Times