« personal: Back on the Shack | Main | Rhian in Cambridge »

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

The fake Puma ads

Yes, they're fake. They have no connection with Puma at all. They're not real ads tweaked in Photoshop, they didn't run in Brazilian Maxim, they're not viral marketing by a top-secret Puma subsidiary. They're fakes, and Puma doesn't like them one bit. Here's the official statement, as emailed to me by Peter Kim, the man in charge of interactive marketing at Puma in Boston:

It has been brought to our attention that several unauthorized, sexually suggestive advertisements portraying the PUMA brand have been released over the Internet. We are appalled that images like these would be created and distributed under the PUMA name. As a brand, we seek to take a unique perspective toward our advertising in an effort to challenge the boundaries of our industry; however we would never consider using these tactics. We are in the process of researching the circumstances and reserve any legal steps available.

What am I talking about? A pair of ads, purportedly for Puma, which hit the internet just over a week ago. They hit my radar screen via the incomparable Gawker, and I posted them on MemeFirst. I didn't know whether or not they were genuine, but there was a lot of interest in them: between Gawker and Salon (in a page no longer available), the MemeFirst page soon garnered more than 10,000 page views.

What's more, the site which originally posted the pictures went offline for some reason, prompting MemeFirst to host them itself (here and here). If you don't want to view them at MemeFirst, however, there's no shortage of other sites where they're available (the original seems to be this one, in Norway).

At this point, Puma started getting in on the act. Various people at the company seem to have known about the purported ads for well over a week, but it's only been in the past couple of days that they started emailing and phoning people. Soon one of the first venues for discussion of the ads changed them to something completely different, and the official statement above started appearing at sites like ad-rag.com and blogs.salon.com.

I got interested, and sought out Puma myself. (Evidently MemeFirst.com wasn't important enough to hit their radar screen and prompt them to contact me.) I had a long conversation with Peter Kim, who seems like a very nice chap who's well aware of how these kind of viral internet memes spread.

He started out explaining to me that the fake ads constituted trademark infringement, defamation, and possibly libel, and that "definitely legal action is in the works". He told me that "it's a clear-cut case that this is illegal content," and that if MemeFirst didn't take the images down, it would face legal action itself. He even tried to anticipate any argument I might have along freedom-of-the-press grounds; while saying quite explicitly that he was not a lawyer, he averred that blogs are "not a media outlet" and that they are therefore not protected on First Amendment grounds. When I said that didn't sound right to me, though, he didn't belabour the point. "I'm neither a journalist nor a lawyer," he said. "I'm a web department manager."

Kim seemed pretty straightforward and far from threatening when he told me that "you can take the stuff down before the machine gets rolling, or you can choose not to." He was clearly concerned by "dozens of emails" that he and Puma's PR people had received from people who thought the ads were genuine, and who even went as far as threatening lawsuits against Puma on sexual-discrimination grounds. Certainly, he said, with regard to the person who actually created these images, "when the truth comes out, it's not going to be a pretty picture, because people are pretty miffed about it."

He also seemed to understand that Puma's PR campaign was something of an uphill battle. "We are handling it on a case-by-case basis," he said, which seemed to mean having Peter Kim phone or email any website he came across with the images. "We've decided not to publish a statement on the Puma website."

That decision seemed a bit peculiar to me, and although he was too polite to say so, I think he thought it a bit odd to. After all, a statement on felixsalmon.com isn't quite as authoritative as one on puma.com.

But the fact is, there's really very little that Puma can do. If it does take legal action against the likes of MemeFirst, it's only likely to perpetuate the meme further. What's more, the extra publicity would only serve to increase the number of conspiracy theorists who think that this is all a convoluted scheme dreamed up by Puma itself. As Kim admits, "there's almost nothing I can say" to counter the idea that some bright spark walked in to the office one day and said "OK, let's create a blowjob ad and then deny it".

The rival theory, of course, is that the whole thing is a creation of Puma's arch-rival, Adidas. Kim's not convinced, though. "I would not want to give them that much credit," he says. "My first reaction was that it had to be a Brit."

Posted by Felix at 23:07 EST

Comments

You can see the other side (not Puma's) of the legal argument at my site if you are interested.

Posted by: Kevin Heller at 12:28 EST, March 13, 2003

Kevin, maybe it's time for you to put away the hand lotion and stop looking at the fake Puma ads?

Posted by: John at 13:44 EST, March 13, 2003

So I guess every kid who puts out a spec ad for their book is at risk for "legal action"? That's retarded. If that was the case, I'd be in A LOT of trouble.

Posted by: Andrew at 21:59 EST, March 13, 2003

Something I learned in GradSchool a while ago.....There's No Such Thing As Bad Publicity.

Excellent example of "viral" marketing

Posted by: ChrisM at 12:29 EST, March 14, 2003

blogs are not a media outlet = lying shithead

Lying Shitheads = No Sympathy From Me

Bring on the parody Puma Blowjob Ads, I say. Make the brandname Puma forever inextricably linked with sleazy Blow Jobs in the minds of the world's public.

I mean, either he's a lying shithead or he's criminally stupid, and I don't which is worse.

Posted by: Alkzndr Phtzhu at 12:41 EST, March 14, 2003

blogs are not a media outlet = lying shithead

Lying Shitheads = No Sympathy From Me

Bring on the parody Puma Blowjob Ads, I say. Make the brandname Puma forever inextricably linked with sleazy Blow Jobs in the minds of the world's public.

I mean, either he's a lying shithead or he's criminally stupid, and I don't which is worse.

Posted by: Alkzndr Phtzhu at 12:57 EST, March 14, 2003

Blogs not a media outlet?
Where has this guy been for the last few years? No one huddles around the radio anymore with their family waiting for the official version of what is happening in the world. Half the news tips I get are from fellow bloggers who have scoured the various news sites on each other's behalf, the other half from legitimate sources such as BBC or the CBC.
I'm not insisting my Web site babble is protected by our Charter under Fundamental Freedoms (Canada's version of the First Amendment), but with more governments clamoring to control what hits my eardrums and eyeballs, I look to real people on the Web for an honest perspective.

Must agree with ChrisM�no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted by: darinsan at 20:36 EST, March 14, 2003

"no such thing as bad publicity"
not only that, they can deny that they had any part in the ads. All the publicity none of the flak for tasteless ads.

Posted by: scott at 21:07 EST, March 14, 2003

1. New campaign line devised by Slick Willy for Hillary:

"His 100 jobs in the hand aren't worth one of mine in the Pumas."

2. darinsan says:

"Half the news tips I get are from fellow bloggers who have scoured the various news sites on each other's behalf, the other half from legitimate sources such as BBC or the CBC."

BBC=legitimate source?

Now that's truly f*****g obscene.

Posted by: J Chevalier at 23:01 EST, March 14, 2003

It doesn't matter if blogs are a media outlet or not, right? Members of the media aren't the only ones with First Amendment rights, last I checked.

Then again, perhaps I shouldn't speak so soon, given that I'm being sued for completely legal content posted to my blog and web site.

Posted by: Diana Hsieh at 0:40 EST, March 15, 2003

Government should stay out of business affairs!!! Unless it's this one!!! Government should uphold First Amendment rights!!! But not in this case!!!

Posted by: The Rust One at 8:54 EST, March 15, 2003

"1. New campaign line devised by Slick Willy for Hillary:"

Remember, Bill Clinton was known for wearing New Balance jogging shoes. Why not a parody-of-the-parody ad with the gentleman wearing a dark blue suit, the woman in Monica's infamous blue dress, and NB shoes in lieu of Puma?

Posted by: Stephen at 14:38 EST, March 15, 2003

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the difference between these "fake ads" and a pornographic photograph that happens to contain Puma shoes? The photos themselves don't appear to say, "Buy Puma" or even "Visit www.puma.com" or whatever. How is it trademark infringment? Who was defamed or libelled?

Bloggers assumed these were ads, but I haven't seen anything in the images that asserts that -- it's just an assumption, based mostly, I'd argue, on the cropping and the placement and lighting of the shoes and the bag. The assumption was wrong, but that doesn't make the photograph 'libel'.

Even if the above arguments are wrong, these pictures definitely seem like parody to me (and thus protected). They have successfully provoked discussion of what the boundaries between product promotion and sexually-explicit material are or should be.

Puma has to do more than find the photographer to make a case -- they also have to find a reason the photographer violated the law. I don't see it.

Posted by: Marc at 17:02 EST, March 15, 2003

I think that this could very well be an interesting First Amendment case. The whole 'blogs are not a media outlet and therefore not protected' idea seems to me to be outdated and in need of change. Perhaps you should contact a lawyer and see what happens.

Posted by: Chef Quix at 18:59 EST, March 15, 2003

Marc says:

"Bloggers assumed these were ads, but I haven't seen anything in the images that asserts that..."

Marc, I can't be sure about the quality of the images you have seen, but there are Puma insignia in the bottom right-hand corners of both ads that hint at authenticity, in spite of the images themselves pushing the advertising envelope.

Posted by: darinsan at 19:43 EST, March 15, 2003

And since when, exactly, does the First Amendment apply only to "media outlets"?

Posted by: Liz at 22:03 EST, March 15, 2003

I really doubt this was a premeditated plan. Couldn't they just be a photo/design project from a college student? If that's the case would PUMA be able to anything since they were created for educational purposes?

Posted by: the heckler at 10:19 EST, March 16, 2003

Liz, never.

Posted by: Mike at 19:37 EST, March 16, 2003

Whats Puma going to do...pull the picture? Who they going to sue? Me...You...Anyone with the pix? This is wallpaper material!!! Good color and shading...should find the artist and hire him/her/them....whatever...

Posted by: Greg at 13:34 EST, March 17, 2003

So, if I take a photo of somebody wearing Puma clothes, I can be sued for copyright infringement? Or is it the fact that they were passed off as Puma ads that is a problem (in which case a notice to the effect that they are not connected to Puma should get people off the hook)?

Posted by: Robert at 20:32 EST, March 17, 2003

Puma seems to have no sense of humour at all. Poor people.

Posted by: Stephan at 4:21 EST, March 18, 2003

The story even hit dutch teletekst, so the word to the general public is out.

Posted by: FrankyB at 0:58 EST, March 19, 2003

This is the URL: http://teletekst.nos.nl/gif/371-01.html

Posted by: FrankyB at 0:59 EST, March 19, 2003

Shame.......

but Nice..........

Posted by: LaM at 5:18 EST, March 19, 2003

I would give a lot to see someone make a Chirac blowing Saddam fake of this ad, with an even more prominent PUMA...then see if they sue.

(Or a Blair blowing Bush. Don't think I care about Iraq--I just think the French suck on general principles and it was the first political thing that came to mind).

This whole thing is genius on Puma's part. Even the fake 'harassment' emails. I don't think they could have done this any better, with the exception of maybe having a fake Maxim page number on the ad.

Posted by: robw at 1:14 EST, March 20, 2003

Spuma ~

Posted by: Bob at 16:27 EST, March 25, 2003

See if they have'nt got all lawyer style i would have gone and buy some Pumas ... i loved the fricking ads !

Posted by: __^-_ at 0:44 EST, March 27, 2003

Well, it's free advertising for Puma. The longer the issue gets prolonged, the longer the company stays on a very controversial radar. ANd it's not all negative. Alot of kids seem to think the ads are cool. I, personally, have no idea what to think.

Posted by: Nina at 13:05 EST, April 10, 2003

I trust that Peter Kim was telling the truth when he released his statement concerning the "fake Puma ads," although personally, I went shopping for a pair of Pumas after having seen the advertisement. So I think he should be congratulating the genius who took advertising to a new level at par with the youth of today, instead of pretending to be apalled at the supposed infringement of company copyright laws...

Posted by: Laura at 15:51 EST, April 14, 2003

MUGUMEN
I AM LOOKING FOR THE REAL MOUGOUH........OOOOOOOOOOOOO�!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: MUGUMEN at 4:01 EST, April 19, 2003

Bob.Bob:

Hi-larious.

Posted by: Sonny at 13:26 EST, April 22, 2003

where do I get the poster from?

Posted by: Giuni at 15:49 EST, June 10, 2003

where can i buy those pumas from teh ad???

Posted by: jen at 11:14 EST, July 16, 2003

the fake ads only make me like puma and the dozens of puma items i, and my friends own even more.

Posted by: heather at 13:04 EST, March 03, 2004

According to the advertisement of the Puma sneakers, I am truly shocked at this picture of a teenage girl kneeling in front of a man and having white substance on her leg. I only question myself how can this advertisement for simple sneakers have this disturbing picture for selling their brand of sneakers. I heard it was banded from some internet sites and that the advertisement is fake. This advertisement is showing to young teenage girls that the action in the picture is not wrong in out society. In other words it�s teaching them to be whores in an early age. It affect young teenage girls more then older girls. Also the young girls don�t know what reality is and what is not.
There are other ways of advertisement on these sneakers in a decent way and a way that no one will be offended. In my opinion guys will not be offended because the advertisement gives a bad concept on girls rather than guys. Nowadays women who sleeps around with a lot of guys is portrayed as a whore and a slut, however when a guy who sleeps around with a lot of girls is admired as a slick as well as professional player. In my opinion I don�t like that assumption that people make today about situations and I think that some people don�t have any respect for other people and as soon as they see something that is happening then they just start talking about it saying everything that they can imagine even if they assume the wrong thing.

Posted by: Jess at 23:33 EST, November 30, 2004

jess: you're a rebo.

love, malcolm.

Posted by: Malcolm at 12:00 EST, December 16, 2004

There was some movie out a long time ago starring Dudley Moore as an advertising executive who came up with the idea of brutally honest advertising. The ads were along the vein of Jaguar: "for geeks with money who can't get a date". I would love to see a brutally honest version of this.

Posted by: JB at 21:28 EST, September 02, 2005

It's been a while, but for the full story, check out my blog.

Posted by: Peter Kim at 21:41 EST, January 28, 2006

days ago,some people want to get a pair puma shoes from me,but i don't have,what a pity!

Posted by: adsf at 5:21 EST, August 02, 2007

offer you some puma shoes with low price,if you are interested in the products,pls see the web: www.cntradecity.com

Posted by: adsg at 0:29 EST, August 21, 2007

I bought AGILE JACKET II from [url="http://www.couponalbum.com/coupons/puma.htm"]Puma.com[/url] store through Couponalbum.com and saved good amount of money..It was so nice shopping for me......!

Posted by: Jacques at 5:23 EST, December 31, 2007