AT&T just can’t get it right.
I thought they finally had – their blanket commercial seemed so good – it ignored Verizon, gave an impressive stat countering a primary complaint (we cover 97% of Americans), and used exquisite, meaningful visuals. Unfortunately the saffron drapings across American landmarks looked just a little too close to the 2005 Central Park installation The Gates by artists Christo and Jean-Claude. Soon after the ad first aired, Twitter and the blogosphere exploded with denunciations of AT&T for lifting the idea. In May, The New York Post reported that Christo complained through an attorney. A week later AT&T responded . . . not be pulling the ad, not by apologizing, but by getting their lawyers involved. The marketing brains at AT&T decided that the best solution would be to affix a legal disclaimer to the ad:
“The artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude have no direct or indirect affiliation or involvement with AT&T.”
AT&T is now engaged in a massive advertising spend that culminates in a small print disclaimer reminding everyone who sees it (especially anyone who lived in New York in 2005) that their artistic integrity is best interpreted by a legal department. And fairly or not, most people feel AT&T is guilty of creative lip syncing. Adweek call is “clearly borrowed” and an unscientific poll from the Huffington Post indicates that more than 85% of people feel that AT&T ripped off (Huffington’s words) Christo and Jean-Claude.
AT&T – why do you continue to confuse legal and marketing?
