Cooper Parry’s ongoing punch up with Barclays over the use of the phrase: "Now there’s a thought" in Barclays TV advertising has left CP bruised but not bowed. Barclays was looking for an undertaking to meet the cost of any lost business if the injunction had been granted and Barclays subsequently won their case.
In its press release, CP said:
"The injunction was
turned down not on the merits of the case but because the Court
required us to give a cross under-taking which we could not responsibly
give without putting all our livelihoods on the line."
‘Scuse me? Isn’t that the idea of being in partnership? You take personal risk? But hang on, CP has been an LLP since 2002. So I was a bit surprised to find that according to Business Legal Limited:
"Limited Liability Partnerships are an alternative corporate business vehicle that gives the benefits of limited liability but allows its members the flexibility of organising their internal structure as a traditional partnership."
I’m no lawyer but where’s the liability problem if there’s an LLP in place + presumably a pretty hefty amount of PI insurance for a UK Top 30 crew with annual fees of £13 million? It got me thinking. Now tell me I’m wrong, but maybe CP thinks it’s on a sticky wicket. Or someone’s not written enough PII legal cover. According to Barclays:
"The judge in his summing up described the application for an injunction
as ’speculative’ and ‘extremely difficult to achieve’. The judge
awarded costs to Barclays."
But then I had to giggle. The Barclays press statement was kinda short on a lot of detail, but told me loads about how Barclays is a financial giant. Yeah – we already know, you knuckleheads. I also know your business processes suck for me as a customer but that’s another story.
On the other hand I thought the advert was pretty catchy, even if it does look suspiciously like a variation on the latest Guinness advert. But then in the competitive world of crap high street, divvy numbnuts driven call centre banking, I’m sure the ad boys on Madison Avenue/Wardour Street have had a right laugh.
They (allegedly) got the (alleged) £1 million ad money it allegedly cost. Which is less than the £1.5 million, CP says it invested in its 2001 brand camping but a flea bite on what Barclays can expect to spend on the whole campaign. And if CP wins (which I sincerely hope they do – and then take lessons on trademarking…) Madison Avenue/Wardour Street gets paid again – to do another set. So I’m guessing they’re secretly rooting for the little guy. Come on, tell me it’s not true.
In the meantime, I was particularly taken with this comment about the case:
"Cooper Parry said it spent more than £1.5m in direct advertising costs alone, in addition to significant sums for merchandising materials.
It said it would be forced to drop the slogan because its business would inevitably be linked in the public mind with Barclays."
Clearly, CP thinks Barclays can’t hold a candle to its idea of service. Now there’s a thought…
loading...
loading...
