Yello Hummer No More

aag shame poor mtn. Nando's always getting in hot water for their tasty adverts
 
I knew this was going to happen... IMO the ASA ruled correctly. Nandos basically missappropritated teh advertising value of MTN's trademarks. When I walked into Nando's it took me a few seconds to realise that is was tongue in cheeck, and thought for a brief second that MTN and Nando's were runnign it together.

The problem here IMO is the fact that Nandos was stealing MTN's advertising value. Some people would undoubtedly think about the Nando's ad when seeing an MTN ad. Nando's was essentially piggy backing off MTN's budget. IN addition to that its the whole "tarnishment" and "Dilution" of trade mark thing.

I would bet my bottom dollar that Nando's argued using the SAB Black Labour, Laugh it Off defence, claiming that it was parody. Yes it was parody, but parody is not an automatic defence. In the Black Labour case, the parody was worthy of protection because it had a deeper, relevant meaning...

I think Nando's got what they deserve. I like their ads, but this time they took it too far.
 
Natas said:
I think Nando's got what they deserve. I like their ads, but this time they took it too far.
Click to expand...

Then nandos changes the ad to a "proudly sponsored by Vodacom, a BLUE hummer because YelloW just isn't summer fun" ... it was a good opportunity to get some good advertising out there.
 
I reckon still won in the long run because for them its a short term campaign and now everyone knows about the hummer. I even looked around the other day in nandos for the hummer pics because of this fiasco.

LOL MTN have lost somewhat because they have shown that it has gotten to them and me begins to think their yello summer campaign is a joke now. And MTN look like poophols for kicking up a fuss. Their longterm campaign has been dented a bit.

Not that their yello summer stuff influences me. I just look at the deals and the prices of the packages and the overall package when I shop for a phone or contract. I will go with whatever network operator based on service and on the deals not on their silly marketing campaigns.
 
Parody, but for what purpose? Purely to profit.

It was the right decision by the ASA. Unfortunately, yet again the punishment is three Hail Marys, and a "see you again next week."
 
“In terms of the code of advertising practice, an advertiser should not copy an existing advertisement in a manner that is recognisable which may result in the likely loss of potential advertising value,” the ASA concluded.
Click to expand...
Is this something like Telkom not lowering telecoms prices and 'recovering' investment costs in SAT-3 till infinity and beyond? How much does it actually cost to repeat an AD Campaign that was bought and paid for in the past over and over and over again? What exactly is the cost-dilution? Seriously, if anyone knows, please inform us.

I do not understand MTN's argument around this. IMO they could've used this to their benefit and piggy-back on Nando's ad-dollar and both companies could've won. Imagine seeing a follow-up MTN Ad: "Tired of having that burning sensation in your stomach? With MTN value, the only burning will be the money left in your pocket!"

I guess creative thinking still needs some thinking in the way South Africa does business.

Irrespective, I'm not one to fall for ad-campaigns anyway. Nando's food remains one of my preferred fast-food options but is quickly falling behind KUAUI in both price and value / nutrition. Still, I found their Yello' Hummer ad funny and give them credit for at least trying.
 
“In terms of the code of advertising practice, an advertiser should not copy an existing advertisement in a manner that is recognisable which may result in the likely loss of potential advertising value,” the ASA concluded.
Click to expand...

So, if I see the ad, feel a bit peckish and go get a quarter chicken meal somehow I will be paying less on my cell phone contract resulting in lost revenue? What a load of bs!

Hmmm... I feel like Nando's now. Any publicity is good publicity, right?

And I agree, MTN feel threatened by a chicken outlet? Somehow I think they have got their priorities wrong and are wasting my f$#*ing time and my money on this lawsuit. So now, because MTN are a bunch of arrogant buggers it will somehow be innocuously added to my cell phone bills to cover the costs. Focus on your damn core business, maybe then you could actually better Vodacom instead of whining about things that hardly matter. W@nkers.
 
LifelongGamer said:
Is this something like Telkom not lowering telecoms prices and 'recovering' investment costs in SAT-3 till infinity and beyond? How much does it actually cost to repeat an AD Campaign that was bought and paid for in the past over and over and over again? What exactly is the cost-dilution? Seriously, if anyone knows, please inform us.

I do not understand MTN's argument around this. IMO they could've used this to their benefit and piggy-back on Nando's ad-dollar and both companies could've won. Imagine seeing a follow-up MTN Ad: "Tired of having that burning sensation in your stomach? With MTN value, the only burning will be the money left in your pocket!"

I guess creative thinking still needs some thinking in the way South Africa does business.
Click to expand...
jetpacman said:
I reckon still won in the long run because for them its a short term campaign and now everyone knows about the hummer. I even looked around the other day in nandos for the hummer pics because of this fiasco.

LOL MTN have lost somewhat because they have shown that it has gotten to them and me begins to think their yello summer campaign is a joke now. And MTN look like poophols for kicking up a fuss. Their longterm campaign has been dented a bit.

Not that their yello summer stuff influences me. I just look at the deals and the prices of the packages and the overall package when I shop for a phone or contract. I will go with whatever network operator based on service and on the deals not on their silly marketing campaigns.
Click to expand...
I agree that MTN approached this in completely the wrong way - instead of setting its lawyers loose, and instead of submitting a competitor complaint [AFAIK MTN and Nandos do not compete with one another], it would have made much more sense if MTN had accepted the parody and either entered into a joint venture advertising campaign with Nandos; or MTN could have copied Nandos and offered its own Yellow Hummer as part of its Y'ello Summer campaign.

IMO MTN realised that Nandos was offering a yellow Hummer which is something tangible and of value, whereas MTN was being cheapskate and not offering anything tangible [or of any value].

IMO Nandos should appeal the ASASA decision on the basis that MTN and Nandos are not competitors and therefore MTN had no right to submit a competitor complaint in the first place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X