When imitation isn’t flattery…it’s theft…

This is an obvious case of, “We'll just ask forgiveness, rather than get permission”. I can only imagine the meeting where they did all the math and figured we're bigger so if we have to throw some money at his feet later it won't be a big deal.

I do remember this commercial. It's not as much fun to watch now.

These large companies won't get away with this as easily in the future. Viral, internet marketing moves fast. This kind of stuff comes back to haunt companies more now. It works its way onto facebook and twitter and youtube. These other sites are quickly becoming a place where fans and consumers are starting to talk more and more about companies. The consumer base has more power than ever with the ability to publish their own findings with just the click of the mouse.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Restaurant Marketing, Tim Sanchez. Tim Sanchez said: RT @scottmckain When imitation isn’t flattery…it’s theft… http://j.mp/bJ27Nc // Office Depot did some shoplifting with this one. Awful. [...]

James –

Love the image you create for us of a meeting where they are running the numbers…

And, I realized something from your comment that hadn't occurred to me when I was writing this: If it had been just a few short years ago, none of us (except columnists for newspapers or magazines) would've had the forum to communicate about this.

Because — as you say — of the viral nature of the internet marketing world now, I can post the YouTube videos and you can see for yourself. The reader doesn't have to take my word for it…which, obviously, is much more powerful.

As consumers, we DO have more ability to share our pleasure and pain with one another — and the companies with which we do business. Just as you and I did here!

THANKS for your comment!!

What a great example of lack of integrity on a big scale! How many of us, as professional speakers, have heard our personal stories told by others on the platform? It's always painful — but this is just plain outrageous! Thanks, Scott, for sharing it!

So now its time to use the viral nature of social media to expose these jerks. This is right along the lines of the Steven Slater Jet Blue story…(without the four letter words) Facebook page, Twitter the story anyone?

Scott, this is truly sad. And, to be honest the ad does NOTHING to do the story justice. It's a terrible ad. It takes a GREAT story and completely washes over it. It has none of the passion or impact that Jeff's presentation does – but, that does make sense considering it's HIS story. HE lived it. They're trying to leverage it to make a buck. The irony in all of this is that I just got an Office Depot catalog and a letter (Chamber of Commerce mailing) telling me about all the “smart values” and “smart solutions” they're offering me. Smart is not a word I would use to describe them. Thanks for bringing this to light. We can now (hopefully) watch the real-time/social Web set things right…

Unbelivable. And yet, believable. I have been here and continue to be here regularly )
People always say “well, your the leader” “it should be flattering”… it's not. I liken it to having an annoying little cousin that repeats everything you say until you tackle them down and tickle them til they cry. yeah.. We have integretity. we do not copy. and there is pride in that. But being copied does keep me up at night!! agh.. so frustrating.

Isn't it ironic, or should I say moronic, that Office Depot COMPLETELY missed Jeff's point? They used his story about price being way down on the list of buying criteria to produce a commercial about their low prices. Is it any wonder they were stupid enough to steal it when they didn't even understand it?

That's my hope, Ray…you're exactly right. Thanks for being willing to share this…you, too, are one of the “good guys.”

That's a great point, Brian — it's a lukewarm dramatization of a really compelling story. Thanks for helping make Jeff's situation viral…

So, Tricia, now I have this image where Jeff doesn't agree to a settlement in terms of dollars…he just holds down the CEO of the ad agency and tickles him until he yells, “UNCLE!”

I would pay good money to watch that!!

POW! Sean, that comment hit me right between the eyes! That is SO insightful…

If they were smart enough to “get it”….they would've been sharp enough not to steal it!

THANKS…

You bet, Cher — and that's why I wanted to post it here. It's one thing when a beginning speaker — not understanding the rules — tells one of our personal stories. Frankly, when I was getting started, I did that…not realizing how wrong it was.

But then, someone will tell you how the game is played, and you stop. (And you begin to become a true “professional speaker.”)

But, for goodness sake, one of the largest ad agencies on the planet shouldn't be this dumb. Or unethical. Or whatever we need to call it.

You're right…it's plain outrageous!!

Well, the next time I have the opportunity to go hear Jeff Slutsky, I will. He's a great presenter! And Sean nailed it. It is weird that a chain produced an ad about low prices helping an independent battle a chain that is known for it's low prices.

> Jeff Slutsky copyrighted the story.
> It happened to HIM…at the barbershop
> in Ft. Wayne, Indiana where he got his
> hair cut that was fighting Fantastic Sam’s.

i would be much more likely to share your outrage about this
if the story really was something that “belonged” to slutsky…

but it seems to me the story “belongs” to the original barber…

you know, the person who came up with the clever idea to
_make_ the original sign proclaiming that “we fix $6 haircuts”.
that's the real genius here…

it seems to me that slutsky merely “stole” the story _first_,
and now doesn't want anyone else to “steal” it from _him_.

and, sincerely, and without a preconceived agenda here,
it is surprising to me that someone could — as you imply –
make their living for _decades_ on the basis of one story…
i'm guessing he has more in his repertoire, and if he doesn't,
perhaps he _should_…

all of that aside, however, it will be very simple to make a
legal challenge to what has been done here. slutsky will
find that it's very easy to get a lawyer, who will work on a
contingency basis, and the ad agency will settle quickly,
because any judge or jury would stick it to them very hard.

so i don't think there's a need to get our panties in a ruffle.

indeed, this might just be the kind of story — one that _does_
“belong” to him, and unequivocally so — that slutsky needs to
reinvent himself on the speaker scene for the next decade…

-bowerbird

i think bowerbird nailed it for me, and saved me a lot of typing.

Excuse my density here, but I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic.

First, I never said he was known “on the basis of one story” as you state in your comment. I never said he made “his living for decades on the basis of one story.” You made that up.

(As an aside, however, I wonder if you have the same feeling about Steven Covey making his living for decades on the basis of the story of “Seven Habits”? Or, J.D. Salinger making his living for so many years off of the royalties of “Catcher in the Rye”?)

My point was it is a main, signature piece. Just as Sinatra wasn't known to the world EXCLUSIVELY for “New York, New York” — as I mentioned in the post — it was a signature song. Jeff isn't known in the industry exclusively for this story — but it is a signature.

Let's use another example. What Billy Beane did for the Oakland A's is his. However, the telling of the story in the book, “Moneyball” belongs to author Michael Lewis. The creative artist who takes an event, and turns it into a highly creative story, has a right to his or her unique version of the story as a product of his intellectual capital.

And, you assume to know that the barber didn't give Jeff permission, therefore Jeff “stole” the barber story. Which isn't true. Would've been nicer to pose a question and ask than make the assumption.

Next, since I indicated in the post that Jeff had heard from their legal team, I figured it would be easy to understand he does have a lawyer, the ad agency isn't settling and is saying there are major differences in content. Which is why I posted the YouTube videos…it is beyond me how anyone can think there is a difference.

Finally, we differ on when it is time to get “panties in a ruffle.” Jeff doesn't need to “reinvent himself” — he's extraordinarily successful at what he does. On the other hand, when a big company displays this kind of careless disregard for a small business — especially to create a commercial to portray themselves as the friend of small business! — I find that outrageous.

I guess you could say it gives me a philosophical “wedgie.”

Thanks Scott, for the kind words. Dinner was great the other night, by the way. But your blog was the best desert I could ask for. One minor point. The story actually happened in California to a client. I was based in Fort Wayne when I first started using this great example from the platform. I think it was it was in 1984. From a legal perspective, I guess you could call that “prior usage.” Thanks again for drawing attention to this issue that faces many professional speakers. I'm sure I'm not the first speaker that this type of thing has endured, but I may be the first one that got screwed over on Prime Time TV. — Jeff

scott said:
> My point was it is a main, signature piece.

then it will continue to be exactly that…

except now it has a much higher profile.

> Just as Sinatra wasn't known to the world EXCLUSIVELY
> for “New York, New York” — as I mentioned in the post —
> it was a signature song.

lots of other people sang that song.

and it never hurt frank sinatra when they did.
indeed, if anything, it _helped_ him, because
it proved that his execution was truly unique…

i'm sure slutsky can use this whole event
to bolster his own agenda, if he is clever…

i mean, it's not quite as appealing as grabbing
a few beers and jumping down an airplane slide,
but it's making the social network rounds anyway.

> And, you assume to know that the barber
> didn't give Jeff permission, therefore Jeff
> “stole” the barber story. Which isn't true.
> Would've been nicer to pose a question
> and ask than make the assumption.

well, lucky for me that mr. slutsky has actually
cleared up the matter for us, to some degree…
the barber was a _client_ of his. in other words,
he “stole” the story, and then _billed_ the client… :+)

that makes it much better! ;+)

but seriously…

look, i put quotes around “stole” and “belong”
because the whole notion of intellectual property
is now being carried away to a ridiculous degree,
everyone has started grabbing whatever they can,
and it's high time we restored some balance to it…

> he does have a lawyer, the ad agency isn't settling
> and is saying there are major differences in content

well of _course_ they're gonna take that stance initially.
did you expect they would just roll over and plead guilty?

but as you and i agree, and every judge and jury will too,
there are no differences, let alone “major” differences…

so just keep the proceedings moving toward a court date,
because they will _never_ let it go that far, that is for sure…

somebody already said it here: it's easier to ask (i.e., pay)
for forgiveness than to ask (i.e., in advance) for permission.

if y&r really woulda wanted to evade making a payment,
they would have altered some aspects of the scenario…
(e.g., made it a $7 haircut, said “we repair $7 haircuts”,
even recast the whole story in terms of another service).

this is just a game, and this is the way the game is played.
and you are simply a pawn… and so am i, for that matter…

social outrage is great. it's just not necessary in this case.

-bowerbird

The cretins at the ad agency did not have the smarts to chage the $6 price from Jeff's story.

You went to Staples — That was Easy. Jeff shouldn't give up the story, he now has a second chapter! It's Winget's Radio Shack story with a twist. Burn them. Now Jeff should tell his story, say it was stolen by Office Depot, then he went to Staples for all his office supplies and use Staples tag line — that was easy.

To heck with Office Depot and their attorneys — That was easy too.

now how do you even know that OD ask for permission to use this. You just jump to conclusions. You must have tried to return something you bought years ago and tried to return it and was pissed because you were beyond a return policy. get a life.

Actually Jeff has a whole new story. One about integrity and he can still share his original story and how a big company like OD stole his idea. He can share the new story with thousands of Office Depot customers every year.

Joe Bonura

Let the people at aw-week know that Y&R is guilty if theft.rnrnhttp://www.adweek.com/aw/creative/ad-of-the-day/article_display.jsp?creativeId=270397rnrnThere is a place for comments.

Maybe he should get the PPV rights – he'd make a bundle so long as it lasted at least two minutes

Jeff's is a class act and a good man! Since 1984 he's been sharing this story along with others with his audiences. It is incredibly disingenuous to invite a speaker to present to an audience, and then have a member or members of that audience share the story for self serving purposes.
If someone, of prominence in the OD “food chain” shared this great story with their Ad Agency, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the Ad Agency figured out how to use it. Scott, your placement of the two adds allows anyone to establish for themselves there are virtually no real differences.
Ethics and Integrity are becoming only words in a dictionary, rather than moral compasses in the turbulence of life's challenges and choices. Pity … that OD and its Ad Agency chose the road of … least resistance!
Francis Bologna

From every angle—legal, ethical, karmic—this is just creepy. People will generally find out the truth eventually. Whatever Office Depot hoped to gain from this underhanded use of someone's signature story will ultimately cost them in the long run.

Joe, I agree — and I don't know anyone who knows more about advertising than you. However, I know how I would feel if the “cufflink” story all of a sudden appeared on someone's commercial. It's just plain wrong.

And, that one of the (if not THE) biggest advertising agencies in the world has to result to swiping a story like this for their creative…well…

My desire is that Jeff receives fair treatment for this incident…while he enjoys the benefit of this new story you so rightly indicate he can now tell from the platform.

Thanks, Joe!

Scott

Russell — you're right! It is the second chapter…and makes a great story even better!

Such a great example of the transparency with which we all live. I'm surprised that someone at OD or Y&R didn't say, “Wait a minute, guys. Do you think the dude we stole this from might actually find out about it? You know, with all the blogs, Youtube, Facebook and all that stuff going on?” Living and acting with integrity has NEVER been more important. Gotta run. Off to Office Max. With my cell phone in hand. Never know what I could video if inspired by something…

Francis — thanks so much for taking the time to add your insight here!

“Creepy” is a GREAT word to describe it, Jane. Perhaps that's why I got so upset about it…it's just not right! And…CREEPY!!

Thanks….

Great point, Linda! And, it's surprising to me — because this post has received thousands of hits/unique visitors — there has been absolutely no response from Office Depot — OR Y&R!

In this day and age with all of the stuff going on as you indicate, wouldn't you think at least the ad agency would be on top of it when thousands of people on social media are talking negatively about your client? (Especially for something you produced?)

Keep us posted on your inspiration!!

I may see if I can snap up those PPV rights, Jacob — great idea. If Jeff wins, a tickle contest w/UFC champ Brock Lesnar shouldn't be far behind!

Scott… What's the cufflink story? I'm looking for some new material.

>> My point was it is a main, signature piece.
>
> then it will continue to be exactly that…
> except now it has a much higher profile.

When I went to college in 1989, I picked up the habit of saying, “Yada yada yada, blah blah blah, et cetera, and so on, and so forth…” to indicate that somebody had spent a great amount of time harping on a point.

Ten years later, I stopped using it, because people assumed that I was taking it from a Seinfeld episode. Nobody owned that turn of phrase, but because it was given a higher profile on Jerry Seinfeld's television show, people assumed that anybody who used it was taking a cue from Jerry Seinfeld.

Yes, the story has a higher profile. But it isn't as Jeff Slutsky's story. It has a higher profile as Office Depot's story. There's nothing in the commercial that suggests it's his story, so people will think that he's stealing it from the commercial.

I don't know what rock I've been under the past few days, but I just found this story now. Un-freaking-believable! Another case of businesses not “getting” it. As this story goes viral (retweeted and posted on Facebook and LinkedIn by people like me and others), the word will get out. And small businesses everywhere will realize that Office Depot is no friend of the small business entrepreneur. With Office Max, Staples, and Office Depot all within three miles of my home and business, I have plenty of choices. Still, I would now drive out of my way now to AVOID Office Depot! Granted, the main culprit here is the ad agency. They weren't creative enough or didn't have enough brain power to come up with something on their own.

As a speaker, author, and trainer myself, I have had people “borrow” my materials. As you so aptly pointed out, Scott, our creative products are all we have. Stealing our ideas/stories/content is no different than if I were to walk into my local Office Depot store tonight and “borrow” some printer ink cartridges. Our creative stories and ways of expressing those stories are our work product.

Excellent commentary, and again, corporate is just plain nutty…big wigs need to screw their caps on better…before they screw something up ~!

This is tricky, because as soon as I started watching Jeff's video, I knew the punchline, and I've never seen or heard of Jeff before.

But as I searched my email archive for “six dollar haircuts” I found three different versions of this same “true story” – one in the midwest, one with a father and son trying to beat the big guy, and another just as Jeff describes it here.

NONE of them were attributed to Jeff.

Now I see the line of logic here – they attend a meeting where Jeff speaks – and then they run a nearly identical story – and then they contend the big ad guys did nothing wrong.

If that's truly what happened (and I'm of a mind to think it IS what happened), then it blows.

But I've heard this story in at least three different ways from three different sources, NONE of whom ever cited Jeff.

If he's been sharing this story for years, chances are good it's starting to take on the “urban legend” or “public domain” feel.

Which is unfortunate for Jeff and any speaker that shares amazing stories. The fact that he's got it on video is helpful (my emails date back to 2007, which I think pre-dates the video, but I'm not certain), but copyright law hinges on who can prove first usage in a tangible way in almost every case.

What bothers me is that SO many people are taking so-called creative license with stuff these days that they're failing to attribute the original source – or perhaps they're too lazy to even FIND the original source to give credit where it's due. In researching a piece I'm writing on sales psychology, two of my sources failed to cite the original creators of “their” ideas. Only after doing a Google search to get more info did I even discover the error.

It's foolish of us to think that an ad agency – or anyone else for that matter – would be proactive enough to do all the research. They would tell us that research is not their job – “creative” work is their job.

Sadly, too many people in this world think the same way.

I actually saw a blog post where the author said that there came a point in her business career where she decided that anything she had learned became HER idea and she stopped giving credit where credit was due for the ideas she was sharing.

I take umbrage with that. Real creatives have no problem sharing the spotlight on their derivative work because they acknowledge the inspiration from which that work derives.

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Good luck Jeff, and thanks for sharing, Scott

You said it brilliantly, Vicki — many thanks!!

Lisa –

Thanks for contributing such thoughtful insight…I truly appreciate it.

Well, I don't know where to start…the author that thinks anything she's learned is her idea is going to be in for a hell of a rude awakening when she has an original idea…and someone treats it as she has treated the contributions of others.

I first heard Jeff tell the story in the mid-1980's…'85 or '86 as I recall…the book he first used the story in was back in about 1992, I believe. So, I don't think there is any doubt he can prove first use.

But, as you mention, where this all feels so wrong is the fact it happened right after he addressed the industry trade association of which Office Depot would naturally belong…and used the story there. At a minimum, it's terribly unprofessional on their part…and my feeling is it is an egregious act of theft.

If you're an ad agency doing creative — and charging whatever Y&R is — you're telling me you don't have people who are better than stealing from a single speaker/author? Evidently not…

You make a GREAT point…REAL creatives have no problem sharing the spotlight. Thanks, Lisa!

Bill…

You'd love the “cufflink” story…it starts when I was in Hawaii for the Ironman…

xoxo, Scott

peter eng said:
> Yes, the story has a higher profile. But it isn't as Jeff Slutsky's story.

evidently it's just that simple to rip off someone's “signature story”, is it?

> It has a higher profile as Office Depot's story.

that's nonsense. if you asked people 3 minutes after
viewing the commercial who the advertisement was for,
85% of them wouldn't remember.

even after seeing it dozens of times, they won't recall who.

> There's nothing in the commercial that suggests it's his story,
> so people will think that he's stealing it from the commercial.

every time he tells the story from now on out, he will explain it…

how a big bad office-supplies store (who he will _not_ mention
by name) tried to rip off his story, the one he has told for years.

and he will get the audience to laugh — with him — about how it
obviously didn't understand the basic meaning under the story,
about how a clever little guy (like himself) could be more nimble
and outwit a bigger competitor (like said office-supplies store)…

and he'll talk about how he extracted a settlement out of the store.

and he'll talk about how the whole brouhaha heightened his image,
and jumped up his speaker bookings, and made his schedule busy.

he'll talk about how the customer is king, and social networks, and
how it's a new world now, and yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah…

he'll talk about how all of this taught him a lesson, how valuable
that lesson is, and how he has come here to share that with them,
and he will have the audience laughing, and eating out of his hand.

he'll talk about how, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

that's what he'll do…

and if you don't understand all of this, then you — quite obviously –
didn't understand the story either…

-bowerbird

“evidently it's just that simple to rip off someone's “signature story”, is it?”

Doing it louder, repeatedly, on national television, even as a thirty-second spot? Yeah, it's more or less that simple.

And yes, he'll probably end up ahead on this, even if he loses the lawsuit. This doesn't make the essential dishonesty of taking a story somebody else told and using it without properly crediting it, getting permission, or paying any money for it any better.

I suppose there's a reason my friends and I have referred to them as “Office Despot” for so many years… it's ironic that they're trying to appeal to “little guy mentality” by stealing from the little guy and then shrugging when it's pointed out.

Horrid.

Well, I'll be taking my office Depot Worklife Rewards card back and letting them know I want my account canceled, since I won't be shopping there anymore. My motto is “I can't fix the world, but I can keep an eye on my little corner of it.'

I LOVE that motto! (No, I won't be using it in any upcoming commercials…I just think it's a great way to live!)

You make a great point…we can only take responsibility for how we respond — however, life gets better when we DO take that responsibility.

I'm really glad you shared that…

Scott

When I read your comment, I just had the vision of the kid with hand in cookie jar…saying, “Well, what did you expect?” It's almost as if there is a lack of any kind of concern or congruency here…thanks for pointing that out, Lucretia!

Scott..thank you very much for this post. I will be writing and/or emailing Steve Odland CEO of Office Depot. Since Y&R has no integrity, my suspicion is that the leadership at Office Depot follows suit. Since they stole this piece of marketing from the “little guy”, Office Depot is not worthy of this “little guy's” business. I will be going to Office Max or Costco from now on!

This sucks, but I'm thinking copywriter or whoever who “came up” with this idea really probably didn't think he/she was stealing at the time. You know, “Hey, I heard of this guy who talked at a trade show, he told this story about X… maybe we could do something like that for Home Depot.” Thinking nobody would make the connection, and those who did would appreciate the adaptation. What the creators of this ad are missing is that this isn't just some little piece of business that happened on a bus or a street corner, or a parody of something out of a movie, but a man's intellectual property. Whether Slutsky can make a legal case for protecting a story, I don't know…but if this slides through by the letter of the law it still violates the spirit. And it shows a tone-deafness that makes Home Depot look dumb. That's what hurts here — a man's career has been ruined, and the ad isn't even a good idea.

Whoops, I meant Office Depot, not Home Depot. Duh.