For the record: Clarifying two facts in Euro RSCG feature
On behalf of Euro RSCG Worldwide in New York, I would like to thank Adweek for last week's in-depth piece about the agency ["Last Man Standing," May 31].
As can happen in any article with so much information in it, there are two factual mistakes that I would like to correct:
1) The article said I co-founded the agency 17 years ago with Tom Messner, Barry Vetere, Louise McNamee and Bob Schmetterer. In fact, it was founded in 1986 by Messner, Vetere, Wally Carey and myself. Bob Schmetterer joined us in 1987, and his name was added to the door a year later. Louise McNamee joined us in 1992 and Wally Carey retired, at which point the agency name that terrorized receptionists for years became official.
2) The article said that Steve O'Farrell runs the Intel account. While Steve is a smart, hard-working account guy, the Intel account at Euro RSCG in New York has been run by Michael Kantrow for the past three years. In addition to his responsibilities on Intel, Michael is also managing director, head of client services, and an important part of the management team leading the agency and driving our clients' businesses every day.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear up these issues.
Editor's note: The Euro feature also said the agency's annual revenue is $150 million. The correct figure is $130 million.
'Cog' was a great idea. But what if it was someone else's?
Eleftheria Parpis' column about why Wieden + Kennedy's "Cog" didn't win the Grand Prix last year might have been called "The Missing Point" ["The Missing Link," A&C, May 17]. Stealing credit for someone else's idea should be a high crime in advertising, an industry dependent upon ideas. On the other hand, maybe the Cannes jury should've given "Cog" the big prize, so long as proper credit was assigned.
Ideas are not subject to protection under the law, but the expression of those ideas is. This is no small point. That the lawsuit against Honda never materialized doesn't mean there was no foundation for one. If the two Swiss filmmakers made such a serious allegation falsely, I would expect Wieden and Honda to launch a scorched-earth defamation suit of their own. I'll bet this matter was settled before it got to the Taco Bell dog stage. I'll also wager that the settlement letter had a declaration to the effect, "While our client in no way admits to any wrongdoing, [Wieden/Honda] is willing to settle this matter out of its concern for all parties involved." How nice of them.
What offends me most is Ms. Parpis' unwillingness to state that—as most reasonable people would admit—Wieden created a great spot based on an idea they (probably) stole, and got caught. Everyone in advertising talks about "honesty," and here is an instance to come clean. Yet some, including Ms. Parpis, avoid this occasion to do so.
Paranoia over ownership issues is pandemic in this industry; people are willing do whatever it takes (including stealing ideas) to stand above or on their colleagues. Left unchecked, the idea mill of the ad industry might begin to look like that of Hollywood. In Hollywood, people are expected to be thankful while being raped of their ideas. At least they understand this. Maybe the two Swiss filmmakers didn't understand the same protocol is at work in advertising. But should they have?
Limine in Motion Co.
Carson City, Nev.
Adweek welcomes letters. Send them to firstname.lastname@example.org, or fax (646) 654-5365. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.