Ikon wins ad industry test case with former client ordered to pay $939,000
Ikon Communications has won its legal battle against a former client, which claimed the agency had overseen a “complete flop” of a marketing campaign.
In a ruling handed down at Sydney Supreme Court this morning, Justice Ball ordered hair treatment brand Advangen to pay Ikon $939,055 plus interest.
The cross-claim against Ikon was dismissed.
Sanity prevails.
It is ALWAYS the client that approves and signs off on creative and media.
And with that goes responsibility (and success or failure) for having done so
Wow. They guys at Advangen must be really pulling their hair out.
Well done Ikon, this was an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs. This was the advertising equivalent of a fat kid trying to sue Maccas.
Wrong. There are no winners in this.
thank god. A win for the good guys!
While no one comes out fo this looking great, as said above – the ultimate sign off on any campaign is with the client.
If they didn’t want this campaign, they had every opportunity to say so, and only sign off something they were happy with.
The whole lawsuit smacks of sulking behaviour.
Equally, don’t hire your creative agency to buy your media.
This stinks of a CMO not doing their job, and then looking around when the chips fall for someone else to blame. The reason you’re paid so much as a c-suite executive is that the buck stops with you.
Ikon is a full service agency. They are media-only in Brisbane.
I know the ad industry is happy with the outcome but look at it from another perspective: you have a medical issue; not knowing much, if anything, about medicine, you end up with a specialist who is part of the world’s largest and best known medical practice; the specialist recommends radical surgery but of course leaves it up to you, the unknowing patient, to make the yes/no decision. Nervously, you take the advice and have the (expensive) surgery. But, when things should be recovering, you’re still in pain and with a large bill to pay.
It’s all well and good to blame the client but they no doubt put their faith in their ever-confident specialist. Why wouldn’t they be upset, they don’t even have the benefit of health insurance.
To me, the real failing here was for the client to turn to a media specialist (who no doubt put the work out to freelancers) instead of turning to mature, strategically focused agency.
A sorry tale. No winner here as others have already said.
But Cynic, in this instance I believe the client had planned to run the campaign for a far longer period but pulled it after only a coupe of months so with your analogy that’s like the patient stopping the surgery a third of the way in. And they were forced to admit in court that they misled the agency about sales results and that what they told shareholders (sales were positive) was correct. This looks like a co that just didn’t want to pay its media bills. I’d say there is a very clear winner.
Your right, of course, the eternal exhortation is ‘take the medicine until finished’ but two months on the market will be giving you some indication of acceptance, just ask a retailer. If it really was working, why would you pull support?
The only hole in the analogy is being the ‘unknowing patient’. Whoever is signing off these campaigns, providing the budget I would hope has something of a clue…
You would hope so but there are some/many naive, or maybe just bad, clients. Turn on your television or iPhone and see what rubbish is out there.
Did it look Ike something from Gone With the Wind when the treatment and first cut was approved?
Well done Lesley and team . I have to watch this ad now ! Can’t wait to see Hair loss with the wind
Ikon deserved to win this one – Advangen were grasping at straws.
But there will be other cases where the agency ‘stuffs up’, or in legal terms, ‘does not provide the services with the degree of skill. care and diligence expected’ and will be liable to compensate the client for the failed campaign.
I have published a detailed case note – headed: Is the advertising agency legally responsible if the campaign is a complete flop? This is the link https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=934c9b21-2bfa-40d6-a6aa-0fedae58c46b
I would like to thank Steve Jones and everyone who has commented because I relied upon the articles and comments to strike the right cord in my case note.