Imitation, Plagiarism, or Flattery?
“Coincidental invention” is the theory that things appear in the market at the same time in response to common pressures. (Rao, 2008) I don’t believe that this theory is acceptable in today’s times and internet age. If an ad appears in the market from separate agencies, the source of the idea can be traced from the original ad if the originator was an ethical and honest person. There is no way and idea can be portrayed the exact same way if it is not researched from the original.
When an advertisement is imitated the product with the most support wins. If a local product is imitated by a national product, the local product loses because more people will refer the ad to national product. In turn, the local company will effectively have wasted money on an ad that does not benefit their product. The only advantage to being copied is when the ad has ceased to run for the product. The new ad will make consumers remember the product and cause no loss for the originating company.
If a client asked me to copy an ad that was already running I would contact the company that owns the ad to get their permission prior to starting the development process. If the company says that they do not want the ad copied, I would direct the client that it will not be possible for my agency to copy the product ad. I do, however, think it is acceptable to recycle ads “in a useful way”. This is because, if the originating company accepts the idea, it will boost the consumer recognition of booth products in a useful way if done properly.
Plagiarism is not justified by the contention that “there are very few original ideas”. This is a direct theft of other writers’ efforts. (Arens, Schaefer, & Weigold, 2009) If advertising agencies are able to plagiarize with no recourse, advertisers will cease to try and generate new ideas to gain consumer interest. I believe Jim Golden of DMH MacGuffin said it best with “All we have in this business are creativity