4 ms·

I think it's because Asylum were told (or assumed) that the prestige of the client would be available to them once the work has been released. Asylum would be

I think it's because Asylum were told (or assumed) that the prestige of the client would be available to them once the work has been released. Asylum would be able to take credit for the work by featuring it in their portfolio. Now they're just the guys who shot the "prototype" rather than the real thing. In creative work it's common for the commissioner to invite the agency to "think of the prestige!" when agreeing to do some heroic work for a limited budget, but it's rarely something that can be included in a contract. That said, while it's disappointing for them, I can't see the moral issue here. If someone contracted me to write some software for them, and then they decided that they liked my implementation in Python but wanted to use a Java port in production, I don't think I'd have any grounds for complaint on moral or ethical grounds. I'd still have the money, and I'd still be able to tell people that I did work for that client, on that particular project (assuming there's no contractual bar to this).

sbarre 14y ago
The moral issue would come from you having been convinced to do the Python version for cheap, based on some future promise of work/fame/recognition, and then having those future promises reneged on.. You're right, there is nothing illegal about it (and welcome to the world of contracting!), but it's still a bit shitty. That's why I believe in "work for free, or work for full price, but never work for cheap."
- citricsquid 14y ago
  From the Leo Burnett response it seems they were never working for fame, they were producing an internal film that was never intended to see the light of day. The RMHC enjoyed the film so much they wanted to have the same idea transferred to a full marketing campaign.
colmvp 14y ago
That's happened to me in a pitch process. We did designs, the company rejected us, but then opted to use another agency that used one of our ideas. C'est la vie. That's what happens when one does spec work. But we sucked it up and ended up getting other companies anyway. However at least in this case, Asylum got paid for their work. And I think they do themselves a disservice by airing dirty laundry out because this is just part of the business. LB decided to go with a bigger production company with a proven track record as opposed to rolling the die on Asylum again. Maybe Asylum should've just looked inward about what steps they should take next time around.
columbo 14y ago
> "think of the prestige!" I don't see how Asylum couldn't get 100% of the prestige out of this. Imagine the next meeting Asylum could have had with a potential customer. Potential Customer: What was your last project? Asylum: We built the commercial for the Ronald McDonald Foundation. They liked it so much that they re-shot it frame by frame using better equipment. You can see here in this side-by-side comparison how all of our ideas stayed in effect and the second company simply came in and did some minor detail changes. Asylum are still in the position of the -idea guys- which makes them valuable. At least it did before they decided to slam one of their customers over the internet.

sbarre 14y ago

The moral issue would come from you having been convinced to do the Python version for cheap, based on some future promise of work/fame/recognition, and then having those future promises reneged on.. You're right, there is nothing illegal about it (and welcome to the world of contracting!), but it's still a bit shitty. That's why I believe in "work for free, or work for full price, but never work for cheap."

citricsquid 14y ago
From the Leo Burnett response it seems they were never working for fame, they were producing an internal film that was never intended to see the light of day. The RMHC enjoyed the film so much they wanted to have the same idea transferred to a full marketing campaign.

colmvp 14y ago

That's happened to me in a pitch process. We did designs, the company rejected us, but then opted to use another agency that used one of our ideas. C'est la vie. That's what happens when one does spec work. But we sucked it up and ended up getting other companies anyway. However at least in this case, Asylum got paid for their work. And I think they do themselves a disservice by airing dirty laundry out because this is just part of the business. LB decided to go with a bigger production company with a proven track record as opposed to rolling the die on Asylum again. Maybe Asylum should've just looked inward about what steps they should take next time around.

columbo 14y ago

> "think of the prestige!" I don't see how Asylum couldn't get 100% of the prestige out of this. Imagine the next meeting Asylum could have had with a potential customer. Potential Customer: What was your last project? Asylum: We built the commercial for the Ronald McDonald Foundation. They liked it so much that they re-shot it frame by frame using better equipment. You can see here in this side-by-side comparison how all of our ideas stayed in effect and the second company simply came in and did some minor detail changes. Asylum are still in the position of the -idea guys- which makes them valuable. At least it did before they decided to slam one of their customers over the internet.