I must admit I'm a little surprised this didn't raise more discourse/debate (and even outcry) in the industry - and by "this", I refer to Virgin America's misdirected tantrum against popular advertising blog, Adrants.
Here's the blow-by-blow breakdown of this particular kerfuffle:
- US Air plane miraculously lands in the Hudson river (sidenote: crew of flight 1549 deservedly honored at last night's Super Bowl game)
- Adrants is sent this (see image) alleged spoof/spec print ad which shows Flight 1549 in the Hudson, framed by Virgin America branding.
- Adrants posts the ad, with a fairly ambiguous description
- Virgin America sends publisher of Adrants, Steve Hall, legal papers which are not only a Cease 'n Desist (or what I call a Sue 'n Rue), but in fact claims for damages to boot
- Steve pulls down the post, but not before evil Google's cache immortalizes it for the Long Tail of Speculation to do its thang (it appears that this cache is now mash....try here for more luck)
- Cityfile captures the whole kerfuffle here and speculates as to why this is frowned upon and yet Virgin Mobile's Spitzer themed ad is not (answer: different division, if not different company entirely...but in the minds of consumers, Virgin = Virgin)
- Virgin dismisses their case against Adrants/Steve Hall
- On the other side of the pond and completely unrelated and yet relevant, Richard Branson himself calls up a disgruntled customer offering them the opportunity to become an official food taster
There are a number of forces/questions in play here - and, in no particular order, here they are:
- Did Virgin America have anything to do with this mysterious spec ad and even if this is fairly obvious to you or I, was Steve wrong to raise the question?
- Is the brand truly schizophrenic or just disconnected, on two levels: 1) mixed messaging from Virgin America (case in point, sexual inneudo used in messaging) and 2) from various Virgin sub-brands
- Why sue a blogger who clearly did not create/originate this message? Where's the freedom of expression or should I say freedom of speculation?
- Did Virgin America truly want to ruin a blogger? Did they really think they had a shot at winning?
- Or were they just doing the same thing they were rallying against i.e. being controversial/sensationalist?
- Will this move help/hurt the brand? Would you want to fly Virgin America after this tantrum?
- Will Steve be the same Steve in the future or is now "once bitten, twice shy"?
I was once taught these words of wisdom, "you can't be half pregnant" and along these same lines, I wonder how much of this is directly applicable to Virgin America in particular reference to this case.
On the one hand, you have a brand that is positioned/perceived as being edgy/risque/irreverent/liberal/progressive. On the other hand, you have a traditional/bullying/close-minded/conservative approach which screams, "disconnect".
Don't get me wrong, I too find the ad in poor taste and I'm not sure there's too much mitigating circumstances (i.e. no one died) to justify its creation. That said, when does the fine line between good judgment and hypocrisy begin and end? When is pushing the boundaries good and when is it bad...and who gets to decide? you? me? laywers? ugggh.
From a "commitment to conversation" perspective, there's so much Virgin America could have done to clearly and decisively separate themselves from this "ad" without having had to resort to legal action. On the flipside, I guess it is reasonable to make an argument that the *possibility* of the average Joe the Plumber mistakenly aligning VA with this, hence the extreme action.
As you'll see from Adrants' update/apology, other than accurate and on the money comments about air safety and not messing with this sensitive priority, it would appear that in the case between Virgin America vs Adrants, the final score was (-1) - (0) in favor of no-one.
I only wish I'd gotten to see Steve on the Today Show. Or the mp3 of Richard Branson calling Steve personally to request him removing the offending print.
A man can dream.
Disclaimer: Neither myself, nor people bearing the likeness of myself (such as Brad Pitt who is eerily almost a Jaffe-doppelganger) had anything to do with the creation of said controversial ad, which quite clearly was never an official Virgin America ad as depicted by the clumsy logo kerning, typeface and layout. In addition, neither myself, Brad nor any of the Jaffe Juice readers wish any ill will to come to the employees, partners, unions, passangers or replacement parts associated with any Virgin - animal, vegetable or mineral - and/or any of its subsidiary parts (private, public or otherwise) Finally, both physical and virtual Jaffe wishes both Virgin America and Adrants happy and safe trails and hopes Steve gets at least 1 free ticket on either Virgin America or US Air for the white hairs this caused. Peace.
Recent Comments