The deed is done... so what now?

Despite vigilance and effort, offensive ads do get made. Or tweets or Facebook posts et al. And predictably, backlash happens.

In some cases, enlightenment dawns and apologies are made. And rightly so, too.

But what about those brands that resolutely believe that what they put out was not wrong?

And despite the most public of denouncements by their intended target audience? A dilemma, to be sure.

Does the brand apologise? Or ride the storm to perdition?

But honestly, would it be complete and utter ruin for the brand? Probably not. But it'll be a bumpy road for a while.

What should the brand do then?

I think that despite the brand's assertion that it did not mean to cause any harm, it needs to consider its present position. If the brand has been known to be a no-holds barred, anything goes kinda brand like Benetton which thrives on sensationalism, then dust it off your shoulder and try again.

But if it is a brand known for thoughtful, culturally-sensitive and heartwarming ads, and have been so for many years to the point that its ads are looked forward to by many, then the brand has a problem.

And the problem is that it doesn't realise that 1) It no longer has full control over what people think about the brand and 2) it has a responsibility to its target audience over the kind of ads it is allowed to produce. It can even get more complicated when the brand decides to change itself.

But here's the pinch. Or maybe an old saying. Change doesn't happen overnight. And you sure as heck ain't gonna do it with an ad campaign.

Here in Malaysia, there's this brand that is going through precisely the same scenario. The brand has since issued a press statement stating their reasons for issuing such an ad. Nowhere does it mention the word apology or sorry. It's not working. The target audience is still incensed.

And it doesn't seem as if the brand will offer a proper apology or make any conciliatory gestures. It'll be interesting how this scene will pan out.

Is copying always a bad thing?

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Well, this past week, Apple was not flattered and Sammy was making big bucks imitating Apple without paying credit due (literally and figuratively).

Which got me to thinking. Is copying always a bad thing?

Advertising is the only industry I know of where the responsibility to not copy is perhaps the most heavy.  For 3 different reasons.

Reason #1 :  It's not cool to come up with something that's been done before.  You won't win awards with that.

Reason #2 :  If you copy, that means you're too lazy to come up with your own ideas. That kind of accusation hurts creative pride like no other.

Reason #3 : You will be found out.  If not by your peers, then by your clients or clients' customers or the world and that's embarrassing. Especially in this digital age.

But advertising is massive in its volume.  How on earth can any admen keep track of all the campaigns and ads that have run the world over?

Sammy blatantly and knowingly copied.  Judgement is passed.

But what about this scenario? What if you thought of something cool, for example a touch screen. And someone else thought the same thing.  And that someone launched first.

Question 1:  Do you then stop development because someone beat you to it?

Question 2 :  Are you obligated to stop or at best, forced to modify significantly?

And let's say by some sheer dumb twist of fate, you didn't know that someone else has done it and you went ahead to launch.

Question 3 :  Are you then at fault for honestly not knowing that someone else beat you to the crunch?

This is the kind of conundrum that admen face.

Honestly, I don't have an answer.