Adgadget: Apple - flattered and photocopied
We're pleased to introduce a new column today, Adgadget, a periodic editorial by Ariel Waldman about the advertising behind consumer technology:

Functioning to flatter, Apple's marketing department continues to imitate their inspiration. While a bit lack-luster, Apple's recent commercial for the up and coming iPhone is a far cry from the originality of the product itself. As some may have seen, it was soon found that the iPhone commercial that had originally aired during the Oscars was a cut and dry ripoff of a film that had come out more than a decade earlier. While seemingly scandalous, this incident was no coincidence. Apple had approached the filmmaker earlier for permission to use the concept; no stranger to being turned down -- and similarly to the battle with Cisco over the very name of the product -- Apple went ahead and used it anyway.
This time the muse happens to be experimental artist / musician Christian Marclay, who in 1995 produced Telephones, an abstract film of absurd and fragmented conversations cut up from phone scenes in movies. The film focused to comment on the relationship between sound and image by way of video; intrigued by the phone-movie mashup, Apple approached Marclay to use his work. Marclay, of course, refused Apple's advances, but Apple took advantage anyway. Since asking the source had short-circuited, Apple instead took to using extremely similar footage, making the iPhone commercial nothing short of a complete color copy of Telephones.
Reminiscent of the earlier Intel chip commercial outcry that clearly ripped out scenes from Postal Service's "Such Great Heights" music video, content confiscation is nothing new to Apple. There was also the iPod incident in 2005, where blogs everywhere threw up screen grabs and expressed shock over the extreme similarity between the then recent Eminem iPod commercial and a Lugz commercial from 4 years before. But it wasn't always this way.
Recall, if you will, the golden age of Apple ads: the 1980s and 90s, where men were men, and advertisements were forthright about their artistic influences. Starting with the adaptation of George Orwell's 1984, Apple at least had the decency to list its inspiration in the liner notes. Its legendary Think Different campaign in the 1990s, by TBWA \ Chiat \ Day, nobly paid tribute to those who supposedly affected Apple's image, even in light of grammatical shortcomings. Despite the tributes, Apple's advertising was criticized even then for incorporating figures that wouldn't approve of their products. Though long retired, Think Different may still to be embedded into the hearts and minds of advertisers, as Apple certainly continues to drum to a different beat: sans (artist) approval.
Adding method to the madness, there is a strategy lurking within the shallow depths of our flat screens. While the iPhone commercial may have made Microsoft and Oscar viewers ask when exactly the "Wow" was supposed to start, it at least accomplished a few tasks error-free. Similar to many viral videos, the iPhone commercial used an Easter egg-like technique to create conversation. With a plethora of film contexts during a DVR-deflated event like the Oscars, the film clips gained attention and contextual chatter amongst not the nerdiest of crowds.
Only hearing of the commercial from a friend after the Oscars broadcast, Marclay, the misused muse, stated, "The way they dealt with the whole thing is pretty sleazy". Point taken to a company that prides itself on design not being how it looks and feels like, but how it works (to quote Steve). In the end, the director decided not to sue. "This culture's so much about suing each other that if we want to have anything that's more of an open exchange of ideas, one has to stop this mentality," said Marclay. "I'm just honored that they thought my work was interesting enough that they felt they could just rip it off."
Ripping out references and prodding pop culture, advertising has always been influenced by mainstream cultural contexts to leverage products. While technology shoves forward, adverts hug familiar fads and new niches in hopes of tapping into relevant conversations. There is something to be said for actively making consumers dig through old archives to be the first ones to call it. Though passive media like television commercials may not allow for a more organic approach to conversation, at least it continues to attempt it.
Ariel Waldman is a Digital Insights Analyst for applied technologies at VML, an interactive agency. Her blog can be read at http://shakewellbeforeuse.com. Views expressed in Adgadget are her own.

This time the muse happens to be experimental artist / musician Christian Marclay, who in 1995 produced Telephones, an abstract film of absurd and fragmented conversations cut up from phone scenes in movies. The film focused to comment on the relationship between sound and image by way of video; intrigued by the phone-movie mashup, Apple approached Marclay to use his work. Marclay, of course, refused Apple's advances, but Apple took advantage anyway. Since asking the source had short-circuited, Apple instead took to using extremely similar footage, making the iPhone commercial nothing short of a complete color copy of Telephones.
Reminiscent of the earlier Intel chip commercial outcry that clearly ripped out scenes from Postal Service's "Such Great Heights" music video, content confiscation is nothing new to Apple. There was also the iPod incident in 2005, where blogs everywhere threw up screen grabs and expressed shock over the extreme similarity between the then recent Eminem iPod commercial and a Lugz commercial from 4 years before. But it wasn't always this way.
Recall, if you will, the golden age of Apple ads: the 1980s and 90s, where men were men, and advertisements were forthright about their artistic influences. Starting with the adaptation of George Orwell's 1984, Apple at least had the decency to list its inspiration in the liner notes. Its legendary Think Different campaign in the 1990s, by TBWA \ Chiat \ Day, nobly paid tribute to those who supposedly affected Apple's image, even in light of grammatical shortcomings. Despite the tributes, Apple's advertising was criticized even then for incorporating figures that wouldn't approve of their products. Though long retired, Think Different may still to be embedded into the hearts and minds of advertisers, as Apple certainly continues to drum to a different beat: sans (artist) approval.
Adding method to the madness, there is a strategy lurking within the shallow depths of our flat screens. While the iPhone commercial may have made Microsoft and Oscar viewers ask when exactly the "Wow" was supposed to start, it at least accomplished a few tasks error-free. Similar to many viral videos, the iPhone commercial used an Easter egg-like technique to create conversation. With a plethora of film contexts during a DVR-deflated event like the Oscars, the film clips gained attention and contextual chatter amongst not the nerdiest of crowds.
Only hearing of the commercial from a friend after the Oscars broadcast, Marclay, the misused muse, stated, "The way they dealt with the whole thing is pretty sleazy". Point taken to a company that prides itself on design not being how it looks and feels like, but how it works (to quote Steve). In the end, the director decided not to sue. "This culture's so much about suing each other that if we want to have anything that's more of an open exchange of ideas, one has to stop this mentality," said Marclay. "I'm just honored that they thought my work was interesting enough that they felt they could just rip it off."
Ripping out references and prodding pop culture, advertising has always been influenced by mainstream cultural contexts to leverage products. While technology shoves forward, adverts hug familiar fads and new niches in hopes of tapping into relevant conversations. There is something to be said for actively making consumers dig through old archives to be the first ones to call it. Though passive media like television commercials may not allow for a more organic approach to conversation, at least it continues to attempt it.
Ariel Waldman is a Digital Insights Analyst for applied technologies at VML, an interactive agency. Her blog can be read at http://shakewellbeforeuse.com. Views expressed in Adgadget are her own.






















I agree! I had a difficult time following the article. You might consider taking some classes!
Whoa, I'm actually trollish enough to need to be spammed by everyone on the internets: lilabit@hotmail.com Thanks for your participation.
Gee, all the Apple worshipers must have already gone home for the day. But I'm sure they will be around pretty soon saying how Apple never does anything wrong and it was actually Marclay who ripped off Apple's idea more than 12 years in the past just like everyone else.
Not my usual kind of post but I figured might as well have some fun seeing as its the end of the work day and all =;)
Clearly Marclay has a damn time machine.
Clearly Marclay was inspired by Martin Tetreault's early works. Does he give a only a tiny credit to Tetreault? No. So, this again is a great example of disinformation.
Not to mention copious amounts of hypocrisy.
Welcome to the cutthroat world of advertising!
A new feature added, and of course the first article is about Apple. I am about three more visits from deleting this site from my bookmarks (not that anything against Apple, just blatant bias)
I liked the commercial, but I hate the phone.
Marketing works!
nice article, ignore the immature, short-sighted comments. it was well versed and didn't take sides; exactly what an analysis should be.
Second that. Ignore the boneheads above and keep on writing.
Funny how a company that accuses others of copying and sues anyone with "-pod" in it has so many copycat commercials. Do you think it'll backfire?
Never heard of Marclay or his film and he doesn't hold a copyright on cutting up flim clips and pasting them together. Marclay should be happy he's getting exposure now. Also, he's an idiot for not taking the money being offered to him when all he had to do was -- nothing.
What was great about apple's 'Such Great Heights' rip off was that their chip fab was so much more advanced than the fab used in the original video. Did you see the silicon wafers they were carrying around? *boggle*
And the Lugz and eminem ad were really not that similar. You might as well accuse every ad with orange in it of being a copycat as well.
But the iPhone and 'such great heights'.. yeah spurious rips. life imitating art. etc. etc.
Wow, it's a commercial. How many commercials have you seen that looked exactly alike? Like 5 hundred bazillion? If Travelocity can rip off the roaming gnome concept (Amelie...), why not Apple?
How many OS' have you seen that look exactly alike? Phones? MP3 players? 5 hundred bazillion?
@Jesse S
I agree. The commercial was decent, but I honestly am not impressed by the iPhone. The hype surrounding this thing is huge, but according to a Cingular poll, only 6% of people were interested in buying it.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/01/iphonesurvey/index.php
And on top of this, have people forgotten the price? Okay, so a next-gen game system with superior stats, a Blu-Ray player (which is ridiculously cheap compared to others) and a practical media center isn't worth $500-600, but phone is? Ridiculous...and I am by no means supporting the PS3...
6% is HUGE in the mobile phone market... Apple's current goal is 1%. That Cingular poll is nothing but good news for the iPhone. If they actually do sell 6% they'll be the biggest entry into the market since the RAZR.
Is "Adgadget" a play on the band name "Fad Gadget"?
It's not worth mentioning that the "Intel chip commercial outcry that clearly ripped out scenes from Postal Service's "Such Great Heights" music video" was MADE BY THE SAME PEOPLE who produced the music video?
Selectively avoiding facts is about as bad as just making them up. It's pathetic that you need to sidestep the facts of an issue to try to bring it up as evidence. Your credibility is shot.
"While the iPhone commercial may have made Microsoft and Oscar viewers ask when exactly the "Wow" was supposed to start, it at least accomplished a few tasks error-free."
Ignoring the fact that you're writing about something that's months past and has little or no relevance at this point, your writing is tripe, has no flow, and in parts like the above quote, makes little sense. It may be time to go back and take another College English class.
Did you click the link? Doesn't look like it.
As far as i'm concerned, links are like citing sources.
If argument-shifting information is only in a link and not in the article, as far as i'm concerned, it's selective evidence.
Maybe that's just me - but i sort of assume "maybe that's just me" is a presumed precursor to any comment.
Occam's Razor.
1) TBWA Chiat team sees Marclay's obscure doc, realizes its value as an iPhone spot, talks to their producer, who talks with the broadcast legal department, who advises that they contact the director of the thing they want to rip off--even though they are exposing themselves to a lawsuit by doing so if Marclay refuses permission. He does, and Apple/Chiat goes ahead anyway.
OR
2) One of the TBWA Chiat creatives, the internal presentation deadline looming, says, "Hey, what if we just get scenes of famous movies where people are answering the phone and cut it all together. It's got a bunch of dead starf*cking, which Apple totally loves."
Advertising is one of the most useless, insidious and derivative industries around. I know. I work in it. But this...essay?... is ridiculous as a piece of journalism. She didn't contact Apple or Chiat for a comment. Marclay doesn't even suggest he has proof of being contacted by Chiat or Apple--and that's the real red flag.
No broadcast producer in their right mind would EVER contact the director of something the creatives ripped off. That's why when random people send unasked-for ad ideas to agencies or clients they immediately get a 'WE DON'T TAKE SPEC ADS' letter, because they don't want to be sued.
Similarities? Sure. Possible ripoff? Yeah, I can give you that. But the story that Marclay was actually contacted by Apple or Chiat? Gimme a break. And give the "prose" a break, too.
Though the article may have been a bit dif to follow, I think it is
quite correct. Last year I attended a recruiting session for a
popular ad agency during which they presented some of their work. Interestingly, they showed an ad they produced for a local radio station which featured a blacked out girl and guy dancing to music in front of a solid green background - sound
familiar? It should, as it appears to have formed the basis of the
iPod campaign. The presenter even commented on how they felt ripped
off. Knowing this, I find it tough to praise APPL on its originality whenever I see an iPod advert (which is often).
When I saw the iPhone ad, I immediately recognized it as the Marclay piece. (I interviewed him once for PBS.) And yes, it's a ripoff. But frankly, Marclay's lucky they asked at all.
He's an established artist, sure (although that doesn't mean much monetarily, really) but his art primarily consists of sampling and manipulating films, records, and other media without any permission from the original artists, musicians or filmmakers. He steals for a living - so what if somebody steals from him? That's art, baby.
I imagine it would have hurt his street cred to take the money from Apple, but it probably would've hurt more if he got all up in arms about this. (Not to mention the legal fees.)
Last November/December, I was reading comments (could have been here, but not sure) from Apple fans about how furious they were that Microsoft had copied Apple commercials. The "Microsoft" (quotes important) commercial was a kid standing in front of a white background asking for a XBOX 360 for Christmas. I was not a Microsoft commercial, but rather a Sears commercial and they had a number of them with the same theme. I guess that to the Apple crowd, using the color white and somebody talking to the camera is a concept fully owned by Apple. But when Apple copies a number of other commercials, all you hear on the Apple boards is how it is a brilliant example of fair use.
I don't think that anyone would lie about being asked permission to use their work. The goal is obviously to get people up in arms about it, and if enough people noticed and the claim was false, I'm sure Apple's legal department would love to have something to do other than convince juries that the suffix 'pod' is property of Apple. So, in that light, if they asked for permission and acknowledged that they'd be ripping him off and did it anyway, that's pretty pathetically lame.
I once worked with am ad guy on a movie project. He had a lot of ideas (he was producing, the movie a low-low budget effort, and he was slumming), but almost all of the ideas were borrowed. My partners and I suggested to him that we shouldn't steal from earlier movies (we were more naive than he, later experience has proven) and his response was, "In advertising, everybody steals. It's flattering!" We then changed tactics and started calling his borrowed ideas clichéd. That worked.
I guess it depends on how you look at it — and whether you love, hate, or tolerate Apple — but the truth is, Marclay's piece was a rip-off of a number of other clip jobs. One, as I recall, was a sixty-second review of all of the great movies up until that year, 1984 or '85, if memory serves. It was followed by (and preceded by, as far as I know) dozens of other similar movie clip shorts. Maybe Apple, or its ad agency, stole the piece. Or maybe someone said, "Hey, remember that Oscar piece this/last/some other year?" and someone else said, "Hey, some guy did something just like that. Let's see if we can get the rights." And then Legal said, "Rights? RIGHTS? We don't got to get no stinkin' rights — Marclay don't own the stinkin' rights 'cause he ripped it off from somebody else." And so it goes.
Is anyone clean here?
The answer is no.