Creative wins apology over disputed credits for Jalna ‘Little pot of purity’ campaign
Two agencies are locked in a legal tussle after both claimed credit for creative work on dairy brand Jalna.
Grant Booker Creative sent a legal letter which gave media agency Paykel a deadline of Friday to publicly apologise for claims it was behind the Jalna Yoghourt “A little pot of purity” creative campaign.
‘Pot of purity”: The disputed creative
The row developed after Grant Booker became aware of a case study published on the Paykel Media website which claimed that as well as working on the media strategy for the 2011 campaign, Paykel also developed the “key” creative.
The Paykel case study claimed: “We developed creative for print, television and social media, including the key TVC creative that was built around the message ‘good habits start when we’re young’ and scheduled during programs with an informative approach to food, health and news such as Global Village and Food Safari programs.
“The TV creative was supported by magazine advertorials in specialist parenting titles, and an online campaign that included a one-month sponsorship of Australia’s leading pregnancy and parenting website portal, Bub Hub.”
Booker: Legal letter
However, Booker claims that his own agency was behind all the creative, with Paykel only working on the media planning and buying.
In the last few days the case study has been removed from the Paykel website, but the below cached version was captured by Google on December 23.
How the Paykel site looked in December
The same Paykel page as it appears now
Booker’s lawyers wrote to Paykel last week demanding the agency apologise and “acknowledge the falsity” of claiming the work as its own.
The legal letter from Booker to Paykel
According to Booker, the strategy for the “A little pot of purity” campaign was developed after research with groups of mothers led by Jalna, Red Spider Research and his agency.
As well as print, the campaign also included a TV ad contrasting babies eating whatever they come across with mothers giving them the yoghurt.
Both agencies remain on the Jalna roster.
Booker told Mumbrella: “I believe it’s wrong to plagiarise somebody else’s work and represent it as your own.
“Nobody can say they’ve done something which they haven’t done, its basic decency. I just want a written apology .”
Mumbrella has invited Paykel to comment.
UPDATE: 2:25pm
Mumbrella was sent the following apology from Paykel.
“Paykel Media Company both acknowledges and apologises for the misleading wording that was published on our Company website regarding Jalna Dairy Foods and the reference to Paykel being responsible for producing creative work.
Paykel has never produced any creative work for Jalna, and has always known that the creative work for the “Little pot of purity” campaign was undertaken by Grant Booker Creative.
As soon as the incorrect information was brought to our attention, the reference was removed from our website.
For clarity, we would like to share the details of how this occurred:
Our company has recently been updating its website with client work and, during this initiative, had an external copywriter undertake the case study that referenced our work with Jalna Dairy Foods. The copy that was written was misleading, and we can only assume that the writer adopted an understanding of our services that was incorrect. We should have looked at it more closely before publishing it.
We sincerely apologise for this misunderstanding and personally apologise to Grant Booker and his Company for any embarrassment or upset this may have caused.”
Wouldn’t be the first time (and sadly, unlikely to be the last) a media agency has claimed the credit for creative work they had little or no hand in – sic ’em, Booker.
User ID not verified.
It’s an outrageous claim by a bean counting media buying company, attempting to present themselves as strategic/creative partners when they’re clearly not, on the Jalna business. If they make these incorrect claims on this account, the question is: Are any of their case histories correct? and if not, their clients should review everything they do for them.
User ID not verified.
So Paykel are that careless with their own website they don’t read copy before publishing it?! Wonder if that sort of attention to detail is applied to their clients.
What’s wrong with a simple “we stuffed up, sorry”?
User ID not verified.
So a media agency’s external copywriter thought they were actually a creative producer? Yeah right. Paykel are on a slippery slope claiming that as an excuse – for it to be true the copywriter was briefed incorrectly, or as mentioned above, the client just didn’t read the copy before it went live.
Here’s a hint Paykel, always tell the truth. That copywriter you’ve just thrown under the bus for supposedly “adopting an understanding of our services that was incorrect” might be emailing Mumbrella right now…
User ID not verified.
Nice story everone comes out looking good
Client – great line
Booker – protecting creativity
Paykel – nicely and unreservedly apologising.
This is GOOD well done everyone (including mumbrella for flushing it all out)
User ID not verified.
Unsatisfactory apology, blame someone else for an obvious false claim.
User ID not verified.