Blog

What can you do about online plagiarists?

2009-12-21T21:10:10Z

You've spent an eternity getting your content right. You've commissioned and produced your imagery. You've spent an equal eternity getting the structure and navigation right. You've refined, and paid for, your keywords and your site is as optimised as it possibly can be. In short, you've spent a very large amount of time and money producing your website. Finally, after all the blood, sweat, tears and - perhaps - tantrums, it's live. You now have the online window that you deserve. It reflects you and only you.

Great!

Well, it is great until someone decides that they like your work so much that - rather than create and pay for their own - it would be so much easier to just copy yours. Copy the whole thing; look, feel, code, imagery: in fact - in certain cases - pretty much everything barring your name itself. You can always find them. It's just a question of looking. For obvious reasons, I'm not going into all the details of how we find them but we do and when we do it's not a case of being flattered: it is extremely annoying to say the least. And it's not difficult to work out how they find you: in fact, it's one of life's ironies really; the more we optimise our site for legitimate people to find, the more it's easy for plagiarists to find!

As I mentioned earlier, the degrees of copying varies tremendously. There are sites that you could label as being in the "inspired by..." category. I don't have a great problem with these. With these sites, you can see where they got the idea from, but they've not lifted huge sections of your work. Ok, so the law protects copyright using the two thirds rule, i.e. if the offending work represents more than two thirds of the protected work then the latter should win. And even in some cases where you could argue that a site (or any work for that matter) falls within the rule then I think common sense has to prevail. In these cases it's best to be flattered and move on. In any event, the law does not protect ideas: only an expression of an idea.

The problem I have is in those instances where huge sections of the work have been copied...or just all of it

And it's these cases that are just plain wrong. Not wrong in the sense that your friend knowingly turns up at a party dressed identically to you. Some could argue that that's wrong but I think that's just pretty irritating. No, it's wrong in the sense of the kid sitting next to you in class and copying your answers. It's wrong in the sense that someone turns up at your house or office and takes your stuff away without asking.

There are some obvious reasons for all of this plagiarism. In our case, the really obvious one is that people that hold themselves out as graphic designers, web designers, brand consultants etc find it easier to replicate than create and, indeed, pay. That may well be the case but I think it goes a little deeper than that. The problem, as I see it, has been created by internet users in general since its inception. In the early days, the internet was a wonderfully unregulated medium and back in those days I used to liken it to throwing a big net into the sea: you may get a lot of rubbish back (very likely) but somewhere within that rubbish you may also get the odd good nugget. I think the medium has obviously moved on a lot since those pioneering days but what it has left us with is a residual attitude towards the "free". Don't get me wrong: free is good, free is generally good and I'd say most would agree with that sentiment. Indeed, there are countless examples where free things have made lives easier; open source operating systems, free software etc etc. Of course, to some free is also bad, e.g. Microsoft effectively killing off Netscape by giving its (frankly below par at the time) browser for "free". Of course it wasn't really "free" but let's not get into that...The point here though is that free is good if it's meant to be free. And therein lies the problem. Open up any torrent type of website and you can download the latest music, films, audio books, software...you name it. All for free. And these clearly are not meant to be free. Some would say that it's ok as the actors, musicians etc "can afford it". I don't personally think that's a particularly cogent argument. You and I can afford a bottle of milk but would you want a random stranger to come into your house and take it out of your fridge?

Having said all of that, I think it's a particularly wise move for media owners and providers to look at monetising every single part of their content. A great example of the converse of that is Sky's recent move towards allowing their existing subscribers the ability to watch the Ashes cricket campaign online for free (or a small fee for non subscribers). That was a very good move on the part of Sky. They get some incredible goodwill and good brand equity on an idea that they could have no doubt charged a mere £5 for and made an astonishing profit in the process. But arguably it's not really free as you are paying for a subscription although it is an additional service. Whichever way you choose to look at it though, my argument comes back to this: it's ok as long as it's meant to be.

So what can you do if someone decides to copy your work? I suppose the easiest thing is to do nothing. But the problem is that doing nothing either shows ignorance on your part of tacit approval. If you know about it, it's hard to ignore. Generally, we prefer to write to the offending website's owner. This works pretty well in most cases. But then again, our emails are pretty scary as very legally slanted.

If writing to them doesn't work then you could always write to the website's hosting company who should generally respond to complaints. There are many ways to prove that your site existed before the offending one. Even a very simple internet archive search (www.archive.org) will show this.

If the above still proves unsuccessful then the option is to formally write to the hosting company as well as all the major search engines. In the case of the latter, the idea is to remove copyright infringing work from their search results. Google provides some good information in terms of sending these formal notices (http://www.google.com/dmca.html). You can of course pay a lawyer to do this for you but, and I'm sure this will come as no surprise, drafting legal documents is not a cheap exercise so, unless you have a whole pile of cash lying around, I'd recommend that you do this yourself.

Finally (and I've left this one to the end for good reason) you can always sue. The problem with the law here is that is whilst it provides good protection against copyright infringement providing that you can prove the content is yours, that is really a good theory. In practice, the process of litigation takes time and costs a great deal of money. Factor in the cases that cross international borders and you can headaches just thinking about it. There is also the harsh reality that you may not win and therefore have to pay huge costs. Even if you do win, the damages will not necessarily justify all the hassle that you've put yourself through. More importantly, engaging in litigation will take you away from doing what you want to doing, i.e. your real work.

Sadly, there is no easy way to deal with plagiarists. I wish our own experiences could have provided more easy solutions. In an ideal world an organisation like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, which has some 184 member states) would be equipped to deal with these issues. Simplistically, you should be able to contact them, prove your content as yours and providing they agree with you, they would be able to do all the work for you. But, sadly again, although we've refined the online world, it's still far from ideal.

Who is the designer?

2009-04-22T09:45:54Z

I have often read articles, blogs etc that cover the frustrations of designers who are victims of a prescriptive client. Being agency side for the best part of 21 years I have experienced the effect many times. It is however a complicated area and hard to work around.

I'll start this by breaking down the kind of clients that I have come across, mostly though I have been lucky, but there have been occasions.

The trained marketing or brand manager with no agenda except a successful project and possible promotion as a result, perfect!

They tend to listen and understand the skill of a good designer, but equally, they understand that they themselves have an important part to play, as they should know their market second to none. Therefore a mutual meeting of minds forms and the end result is perfect. The designer gets to understand the issues and so goes about his work well informed, able to explore the depths of his art.

The unsure marketing or brand manager
Then there are those rare, but painful times when a client has a very clear picture of what they want, and yes, know there subject matter extremely well, except that they are less aware of what's been going on in the creative industry and have become victims of their own desire for success, often too engrossed in the detail and missing the bigger picture. The thing about good designers is that they tend to know what makes people tick on a sub-conscience level, an example being Apple's packaging: it seduces people. Yet is there a science to it? Well yes, there probably is, but it would be impossible to dissect that knowledge and re apply it via a layman. So here you have the client - doesn't understand how to handle the creative solution, doesn't know what makes a customer purchase and relies on the detail, i.e. increase the logo, put an image of someone smiling, put an 'offer' label on it, don't forget the disclaimer etc. the result is something that has all the elements that according to the books, will improve sales, but in reality just puts people off.

Another often missed opportunity is brand shelf life, while looking intently at the packaging in isolation, clients and even designers often forget about total brand shelf presence, after all, products mostly sit in masses on shelves don't they?, therefore too many messages on a single piece of packaging not only makes the product lose any presence or personality, but when all together in one mass of marketing opportunity can result in just visual noise, a wasted opportunity.

Ok, I'm going off the track here a little, but bringing it back to my point; a good client should know their subject matter, recognise a good consultancy, trust the designer and let them do what they do best, advising on how their market works and creating some magic. This way special things are created, and guess what, people buy them!

Augmented reality, does it have a place with brands

2009-03-17T11:07:04Z

Something that has been on the radar of late is a new, or relatively new, augmented reality concept. How marketing and branding companies use this is yet to be seen, but rest assured, something fun will come from it, if not already. We at Rareform have already started to explore what can be achieved with it, so who knows, the next big thing could be billboards being interacted with via T shirt logos... sounds like fun to me.

Anyway, check it out...

Mini

BMW

Hitlab

3D logos, why, when and what for...

2009-02-26T15:06:05Z

In recent months a successful brand that Rareform created was tweaked by a US based branding consultancy. Although the logo wasn't changed, what they did was create a new 3D version of it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not writing this on a mission to protect our work, however, it did raise an internal debate about the 'whys' and 'why nots' around creating 3D logos. Additionally, it has been something in the past that we have engaged in with different clients for different reasons. I therefore thought it would be a good blog subject and would welcome other opinions.

My personal thinking on the subject goes like this (feel free to disagree); 3D logos are fine, depending on a number of criteria - audience, application requirements, service etc. For example, there are many interesting brands out there that use 3D marks, and they work well. However, the ones that do work tend to have a logic behind them. If you take the Sony Ericsson logo, it is 3 dimensional, and why not, after-all it is a company that creates interesting 3 dimensional products. In fact product innovation is its forté, therefore living, tactile objects are what it's about, Apple in recent years has started to use 3D logos, again, reflecting its product innovation and creation of real world objects that people interact with. Other more recent examples are AT&T, Barclaycard, X-Box, Skype, etc, etc all of which are good brands, look nice and in general have a purpose. Additionally that same logic can be extended to car logos: BMW, Mini etc. etc: again, real world tactile "objects", applied 3D 'badges'. Here, though, is the thing... 'purpose', i.e. if there is a logical reason to do it then fine, why not, but, and this is a big 'BUT', don't do it on a whim. In fact I would suggest you think long and hard about this.

My reasons for this are as follows; as with one of our clients, turning 3D has its problems, and they are many. Firstly, think about application, sure, if you are a web or screen based brand, no problem, but if you have hundreds, or even thousands of high-street stores, outlets, think about application, how are you going to achieve consistency with facias or even livery? Remember that a 3D logo on paper is created with tones. With facias, you have the ability to extrude, backlight etc. but once you have a 3D (paper) logo it is almost impossible to re-create that in signage. The only way is to create films, placed over translucent perspex and hope that the end result looks OK, then pray that heat, weather etc. gives you enough time to make sure the client is happy enough to pay the bill before you lose the account.

Then there is cost - a strong 2 dimensional logo is cheap to produce, always consistent and will never be a headache. A 3D logo on the other hand can be a thorn in your side - various versions needed for different size applications, different coarse screens required depending on size, restricted backgrounds, it is likely to have to go onto a box to guarantee legibility. But the one thing that many clients will understand more than most is cost... a simple 2D logo is cheap to produce, a 3D logo will mostly need to be printed in 4 colours (minimum), limiting consistency in application and raising overall print costs.

So, when your thinking about creating a 3D logo, consider the following;

print costs - 4 colour plus specials = high print costs
consistent application - re producing it on different materials will be a headache
issues with signage - very difficult and expensive to produce well, or a weak and limited effect with films
issues with fax versions - rarely works with limited production technology
issues with embroidered versions - very weak results
engraved or embossed - very weak results at best, mostly impossible

Now I'm in danger here of sounding 'anti' 3D logos. I'm not. I just feel strongly that you need to consider carefully why you are doing it, sometimes it is exactly right, but all-too-often it is done with the mind-set of 'everyone else is doing it'. And let's face it, if everyone else is doing it there is a good reason right there to avoid it. And then let's also remember some of the greatest brand marks that ever lived.... Nike, Coca Cola, Apple, BP.... are all strong 2D marks, occasionally seen in 3D, but rarely, and when they are they still retain an iconic, simple shape. So sure, 3D is the way things will possibly go in the future, but not for the sake of 3D, just a possibly application style.

So, if you are thinking of creating a 3D logo, sure, go for it, it can work and in many instances it will be perfect for the role, it would be great to see some strong 3D marks that don't rely on a sphere. Just remember though, is it really required? Where will it be applied? Can I afford the extra print costs? Will it help me stand out from the crowd? Or will I be just another company investing in an expensive fad, meaning that I'll have to change it back again!? Remember... Audience, Application, Service. If it fits, sure, but otherwise, steer clear.

Designers Republic go out of business - RIP

2009-01-27T10:00:05Z

I am shocked this morning, finding out that Designers Republic have moved off the chart leaves a strange feeling. For many years now they have been an industry icon, with many designers being influenced by their simple and iconographic approach to design. It seems sad to me that a company that has given so much to the industry has suffered the first blow of the current economic downturn. Why them? after-all, they have always seemed to be the most unlikely to leave the arena.

My predictions earlier this month was that we would start to see some larger design agencies and consultancies bite the dust, but to tell the truth, I was expecting some of the more typical agencies to go before we would see someone like DR. But then after reading a comment by founder Ian Anderson on how it had started to grow in the direction of a standard agency structure, you can start to understand why this could have happened.

It seems the things that happen in these types of economies has happened, lost pitches, over staffing and burden and of course, the dreaded 'cant pay, wont pay' client. Leaving that gaping hole in cash flow, the result being that one of the most admired agencies are forced out of the arena. It's easy to say that du-diligence should have been tighter, but I know from personal experience, how unseen these things can be, and how easy it is to loose site of the philosophy that has given you strength in the first place.

Lets hope that they rise from the ashes like a phoenix.

Brands, inside out

2009-01-21T22:37:57Z

I suppose I should start with the obvious question; what is a brand and why do we need them?. Let's cover this for a moment, in simple terms. A brand is character, the lasting impression I have when I remember an experience with a company, or even a person come to that. So, that said, what are the touch points of a brand. Errr... logo, website, brochure, store, packaging, office, business card etc etc... you know all these.

The thing is, agencies typically create brand strategies by creating a full proposition for a company, you know, vision, mission & values (or variations of these). All very important and vital to the success of a company and often put in place to convince customers to buy more products, and why not. The trouble with this though is that you can only go so far for so long with this strategy. Sooner or later that shiny new logo with that lovely shadowy effect that has been convincing customers to part with their hard earned money may one day be the one thing that potential customers remember for bad customer service, slow delivery, weak products etc.

So, the point I'm making is this, and many of you will know this - brands need to be equal inside and out, a shared view and beliefs that are all aligned with a brand strategy. This has never not been important, but today it is becoming even more important as customers are learning not to be fooled by a brand that simply affects a clever visual space. They are becoming even more demanding, expecting brands to deliver on their promise, and expecting nothing less. After all customers are not only a lot more "savvy" these days but also have a lot more at their disposal in terms of information gathering. The internet for example easily allows a customer to find out about a company's values and if they do not live up to them in terms of service then that's very damaging: bad press travels very fast indeed. In short, companies have to practice what they preach.

So where does this leave branding consultancies? Well, I believe that branding consultancies need to build alliances with other professionals in related fields, i.e. business consultancies, change specialists, culture experts, knowledge agencies, internal communication experts. Equally these specialists need to understand their skill base. Business consultants are experts at unblocking any barriers such as bureaucracy or red tape, greasing the internal wheels to increase productivity and opening opportunities for knowledge sharing, etc. Internal comms specialists understand how internal channels work and how best to tap into staff and start to sculpt behaviour, and brand consultancies... well, as I said, we align brand strategy or the DNA of an organisation, creating a brand that relates directly to the organisation's long term ambitions (vision) through value sets and other tools, and making sure that any other specialists involved understand the full objectives.

Finally, I just want to cover some companies that appear to be doing this, and as such are very much in the public eye, companies such as BP, BT, HSBC, Apple, all of which have made specific commitments to their audiences and need to make sure the promises they make to their customers are kept. If they are relied upon to bring out new innovative products, they can't be seen as not to deliver, or if a company promises their customers that they intend to improve the way they operate in the long term interests of the environment, they need to be doing this, not just attempting to make customers believe this in order to sell more products.

So what does that mean for companies like BP? Well, they need to make sure they have a good business consultancy to help them achieve their objectives, to help the company move in the right direction, to make sure business decisions are always based on the right objectives. They need a strong internal communications company to help embed their values, and they need a good branding consultancy that understands how all these things work in unison, creating the perfect company, one objective and dream, one direction, one team, perfect inside and out.

Ready steady go - branding in a credit crunch

2009-01-09T10:49:49Z

I will start with saying that this is just my humble opinion, and humble it is. But it is an opinion and even a little on the optimistic side.

Last year, well the end of last year, was tough; bank shares not just crumbling but imploding,,, disintegrating and settling into the earth like dust from the auditors year book. But guess what, I have an opinion, "its good news for branding and design communications companies!" well at least for the SME's of the creative world. You see the way I'm seeing it (sorry, just putting my 'rose tinted' glasses on) is like this. Every day for the last 3 months, some large organisation has disappeared, leaving a gaping hole of opportunity for smarter, nimbler and more 'brand' conscious companies, after-all, if the need is there, opportunity will plug the gap.

Of course, this 'theory' all depends on what's to happen in the next 9 months, but with the Bank of England reducing its base rate to 1.5%, VAT cuts (well, kind of) and now the possibility of 'printing' money, things may with luck start to stabilise, which will give entrepreneurs the confidence to invest. Voila! lots of smaller brands coming on to the market.

Of course, although this would be great for some, it wont be good for everyone, larger branding companies may need to re think how they operate as fees will probably drop (on avrg.) but there will probably be more projects about. What i believe will be happening right now, and it isn't rocket science, is companies will be reducing their marketing spend but pushing it harder, hoping to maintain results while making cost savings. This will mean marketing departments will be looking for value for money. So if branding consultancies/agencies offer a professional, thought through, process led solution but with creative difference, they could be getting busy right now.

Sorry got to go, phones getting busy!!

THE POWER OF BRANDS

2008-11-11T16:11:06Z

We've been thinking, what makes a brand work today?

I've been wanting to talk about this subject for some time, I've had a few particular brands in mind that I have had the pleasure of reviewing, brands that have changed the market place for good.

One of these is Innocents Drinks. This crazy group of guys and girls took a product that is simple and easy to produce and created a huge change in the market. They essentially did what all good branding companies should do, they looked at what was different and special about their product, and then created a brand that was simple and clear, but was confident enough and brave enough to stand out from the market.

In a nut shell then; a good product, a simple message, a strong and different brand with bags of personality and some fantastic copy writing, oh yes, and some brave decisions.

I actually had a rather bizarre holiday once with Dan Germain and Marcel de Quervain in Cape Town, two of the creatives who are responsible for the end result, nice guys with huge talent.

If anyone has any interesting and new brands that they feel have changed the branding industry, please let me know, I would love to feature others. I intend to add some more in coming weeks.

Oh yes, there's Salty Dog

Another great modern brand in my humble opinion is Salty Dog the crisp brand that is starting to fill pubs, restaurants and shops all over the globe. Somehow they have managed to create a brand that is fun and a little whacky, and like Innocents Drinks, have avoided copying the market and have been brave and smart enough to jump ahead of a very over crowded market, nice one!