6000.co.za relaunch

After this bit of apparent FIFA silliness, I have decided to relaunch 6000 miles…

We are now The Unofficial National Blog of the You-Know-What

 

Just don’t tell Sepp, ok?

UPDATE: Here’s the offending ad, which Kulula state on their facebook page, has got:

Nothing to do with the WC. Just to be clear.

Well, if by “WC”, they mean “World Cup” (and do they?)
Ja… right. 

My take now, having seen the ad (but not the letter)? I’m with FIFA. They have every right to protect their partners’ rights on this.

Unpopular view, maybe – but as I said in this comment, Emirates must have paid a small large fortune to be the airline associated with the tournament and this is blatent ambush marketing by Kulula. 

To be honest, the only whining we should be hearing from them should be from their plane’s engines.

44 thoughts on “6000.co.za relaunch

  1. I wonder if FIFA (or most other companies) are ever going to realise the potential free advertising they could get from people like Kulula? They’re so fast to jump on their “Don’t use our trade marks!” bandwagon that they don’t seem to consider the positive side.
    .-= Rob´s last blog ..FIFA are idiots =-.

  2. Haha you gonna get your ass sued. You have the words “South Africa”, “vuvuzela”, “ball”, “World Cup”, on your blog, and I’m willing to bet the word “football” pops up here and there…
    .-= Po´s last blog ..Friday fripperies =-.

  3. Rob > I think there are a few points here.
    Firstly, we’ve only heard one side of this. The whole thing about not using the SA flag and “South Africa” – I’m willing to bet that the FIFA letter to kulula said something along the lines of “the flag and “South Africa” must not be used IN CONJUNCTION WITH any football imagery”. And that’s fair enough, because:
    Secondly, I have NO CLUE how much Emirates have paid to have their name associated with the World Cup. But with a total global audience of almost 27 billion last time around, one can guess that it’s quite a bit. So why shouldn’t FIFA protect that investment?
    Thirdly, kulula KNEW what was going to happen with this. They are known for their edgy/amusing ad campaigns. And which airline are we all talking about and feeling sympathetic for today? Kulula.
    And what was Mango’s last ad campaign about again? Can’t remember? Exactly.

    Po > I have insiders high up in FIFA. They come after me and I’ll spill all both the beans.

  4. All valid points yeah – but the problem I mostly have is that FIFA are behaving like immature idiots in the way they’re handling it (Kulula might well be acting like immature idiots in the way they’re publicising it)

    I can certainly appreciate that someone like Emirates paid a premium to be associated and that’s their choice – but Kulula should be able to advertise as they like as long as they’re not directly infringing on Emirates or Fifa property.

    Saying “You Know What” should be acceptable – because we all know that “You Know What” is the Asian Confederation Cup.

    Fifa’s been known to be a pain in the ass before. It all just smells of a big name taking on a little name to flex muscle.
    .-= Rob´s last blog ..FIFA are idiots =-.

  5. Look we don’t know the full story so my judgement is out on that but I think they made a bad call bringing in the lawyers in the first place. Kulula made a tongue in cheek move, it was clever and got a few laughs but it would have passed. Now FIFA’s own actions have made it a bigger deal and made them to appear as a bunch of…nasty bunnies. And protecting the partners? There’s nothing to protect, they haven’t actually infringed on any copyright here.

  6. Rob > I felt maybe it was a bit iffy either way, but now having seen the ad, I’m solidly behind FIFA. How kulula can say that the ad it “Nothing to do with the WC” (note they didn’t say “World Cup”), is beyond me.

    PhillipGibb > If you’re suggesting that FIFA should be allowed to ride roughshod over all of SA, I don’t agree. But kulula are in the wrong here – and they knew it when they did this ad.

    Tara > Nope. There’s plenty to protect. What are FIFA supposed to do when confronted with something like this?

    CTG > Just by saying that, you have opened yourself up to being sued for smiling near a FIFA official.

  7. Phillip Gibb > And the footballs and the football player and the vuvuzelas and the…

    Tara > And open the door to other ambush marketeers and get no sponsorship for Brazil in 2014? Pah.

  8. Oh please, they’ll ALWAYS get sponsorship with the popularity of the sport. People like to be the official whatever of whatever, but that’s not my issue. I’m saying they should have handled it better from a PR perspective. Sending in the team of big corporate lawyers that people love to hate is not the way to win over a public who is more sensative to a smaller, local company.
    People love the underdog and that’s what Kalula is right now with Fifa seemingly behaving just like a stereotypical corporate bully.

    Brilliant move by Kalula there though 😛

  9. The thing is, who shoved this lot into the public domain? Most people appear to think FIFA wrote an open letter. They didn’t. They wrote a nice and expected legal letter to the people at Comair, who then went and put it in the papers, saying look how good we are and how big a bully they are.

    As far as ambush marketing goes it’s textbook. And kudo’s to Kulula for that (in a way). They’ve clearly thought this through and seen how they can make it work for them.

    But don’t go throwing rocks at FIFA over it. They’re doing what any governing body has to do when it comes to these events. Protecting the interests of their investors.

  10. Tara > Of course they’ll always get sponsorship. But how much will those sponsors pay if they see their rights are unprotected?

    OL > No, but I can unofficially make you an offical fan if you want/

    Gary > Is the right answer. 100%.

  11. Fifa like to call ALL the shots.

    I am more than happy to see someone challenge them. I don’t see that they have a defensible position here.

    If they took it to a court of law, I really don’t see that they have a case.

    How can they prove that the advert has caused them a loss? And if it has, how do they quantify that loss?

    But it’s all good publicity for WC (am I allowed to type that?)

  12. To your point about Emirates air, I fail to see the relevance. Kulula is a local carrier, advertising in a local market to local customers. Emirates is not a domestic carrier and the Kulula offering is not in direct competition with them. Emirates will still get its ROI since their international audience won’t know about Kulula until they arrive here and need to get around. Once again: a service that Emirates air does not offer in this country.

    This action by Fifa is simple knee-jerk reacting to a situation without thinking it through. Better would have been for Sepp Blatter to congratulate the brand for doing what they (and all other airlines) were asked to do: lower their prices. In fact, this statement (reported by the BBC) is a clear indication of just how ridiculous the entire situation is:

    “For the record, Fifa did not tell Kulula that they could not use soccer balls, or the word ‘South Africa’, or the Cape Town stadium, or the national flag or vuvuzelas,” said a statement from football’s world governing body.
    It was the combination of these elements which were banned, the statement said.

    C’mon now. That is a fatuous statement if ever there was one. How many elements make an unlawful combination? I’ll bet Fifa doesn’t even know and clearly they’re not taking any chances (thinking about it for any amount of time).

    Bottom line: Fifa is a clueless juggernaut, powered by trolls and driven by greed with no idea about the markets in which they find themselves or the world in which they exist.
    .-= Amod Munga(@phr0ggi)´s last blog ..Brand-Slam: Heineken =-.

  13. GaiB > Why don’t they have a defensible position?
    The rules on ambush marketing aorund the World Cup have been made very clear and Kulula have broken them.

    Amod Munga(@phr0ggi) > Interesting that I hadn’t read FIFA’s response before I posted. So it was the combination of icons that were unacceptable. Thus Kulula’s moaning about “we’re not allowed to use the words “South Africa” or the national flag” were disingenuous, at best.

    Another point: If, as Kulula stated, this ad had nothing to do with the “WC”, then what exactly is the “you-know-what”? That should be a pretty easy question to answer, but their press office and social media guys constantly duck it. I wonder why?
    They must think we’re idiots.

    If Kulula want to be the official national carrier of the World Cup, then why don’t they stump up the cash for that right, like MTN have for their sponsorship, instead of trying to hijack someone else’s rights.

    Bottom line: Kulula has a clever marketing company, powered by teenagers who know exactly what markets they find themselves in and know exactly the rules that they are deliberately breaking.

  14. Does this mean I won’t be able to sell my “2010 SWC Heather Mills Meet ‘n Greet” tickets online?

  15. Read the statement from Fifa again. They’re upset about the combination. A combination which they themselves haven’t clarified. Can we use everything but the soccer balls? Or is it the combination of the soccer balls and the flag that’s a problem?

    Fifa has handled this situation all wrong. And Kulula’s latest iteration of their ad is the knockout ad.

    As you said:

    [i]”Bottom line: Kulula has a clever marketing company, powered by teenagers who know exactly what markets they find themselves in and know exactly the rules that they are deliberately breaking.”[/i]

    And at the whistle, it’s Kulula 2 – Fifa 0.
    .-= Amod Munga(@phr0ggi)´s last blog ..Brand-Slam: Heineken =-.

  16. Bad on FIFA for having no sense of humour and no legal grounds on which to win anything in this matter. (What have Kulula technically done wrong? Do the masters of the universe, FIFA, also demand ownership of advertising creativity?)

    Good on FIFA for giving Kulula precisely the mileage they wanted. FIFA bit the bait beautifully.

    FIFA – 0
    Kulula – 1

  17. Rob > Look, I don’t think there’s any doubt as to why Kulula chose to put that ad up. And yes – FIFA are making a mint – but they do organise terribly good World Cups terribly well.

    Heather > No. You can’t. And you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    Amod > The information is there for advertisers to read. It wasn’t like this was news to them. They all had a good moan about it when it was first announced.

    [rude name] > Sorry – had to censor your name, as it was obviously too rude. So it looks like you’ve fallen foul of some terms and conditions as well. How ironic.
    Ah yes – FIFA’s lack of “sense of humour”. Relevant because, when dealing with millions of dollars of brand management and marketing, one must always see the funny side. Honestly, if that’s the best that you can manage, you are an idiot.

    FIFA have to challenge this ad, or it opens the door for ambush marketing throughout the run up to and duing the tournament. Yeah – hugely clever of the Kulula people. Until they try it next time and get sued for millions.
    Thus, FIFA win on penalities. Literally.

  18. “Ah yes – FIFA’s lack of “sense of humour”. Relevant because, when dealing with millions of dollars of brand management and marketing,”

    Let FIFA sue. They’ll lose and everyone will laugh at them for trying to be unnecessarily draconian and humourless. We’ve seen many times before, that corporations / organisations struggle to protect their brands from parody et al. And rightly so.

    “FIFA have to challenge this ad, or it opens the door for ambush marketing throughout the run up to and duing the tournament. ”

    Are you for real? I HOPE they do challenge the ad. More funnily, on WHAT grounds will they challenge? Kulula have done nothing wrong. And FIFA will have to prove that Kulula’s ad has caused damage, which it hasn’t, obviously. FIFA can’t win at all. This will be hilarious to watch.

    Bring on the ambush marketing, I say. And for God’s sake, laugh it off.

  19. [rude name] > Great plan. So where does that end?
    Anyone can do anything with any tournament?
    And so no company bothers to sponsor any sporting event anymore, because there’s no point in having your brand name associated with the tournament or event when anyone else is just allowed to march on in with their own “creative” ideas.
    Creative, my arse. Calling the World Cup “the you-know-what” and then denying you meant the World Cup? It’s about as creative as something a Grade 10 learner would have come up with.

    Way to ruin sporting events – because they that NEED that money to exist. And when it drys up because of cocks like Kulula, to whose benefit is that?

  20. I have continued to use bad language and have also supplied a false email address.
    I have therefore been blocked, as per the terms and conditions I should have obeyed.

    [possibly slightly edited by 6000]

  21. 6000, I think you’re being a bit draconian. You don’t exactly have readily available T&Cs, especially not anywhere near the comments section.

    For someone who apparently has a sense of humour, yours certainly seems wanting. Kulula made a funny ad that obviously can’t be challenged legally. FIFA can not and should not be allowed to protect their brand(s) with impunity, especially in the public arena. Kulula did nothing wrong and if you can tell me what they ACTUALLY did wrong, then we might have a discussion.

    And so no company bothers to sponsor any sporting event anymore, because there’s no point in having your brand name associated with the tournament or event when anyone else is just allowed to march on in with their own “creative” ideas.

    That’s being sensational. Where has that happened? Are you suggesting that Kulula’s ad is going to bring the World Cup tumbling down? Please.

    FIFA are being idiots and are making Kulula look like comedic heros.

  22. John The Great > 5,500 comments and 4 people blocked suggest differently. But I’ll look into a link to the T&C’s – I haven’t had to even consider that before, because generally, people don’t act like twats.

    I’m not suggesting that Kulula’s ad will end the World Cup. But what I am saying is that if it remains unchallenged by FIFA, that sets a precendent. Which in turn opens the door to this constantly happening and yes – eventually could have the effect of reducing willing sponsorship of major events. It’s not that hard to imagine. (Sorry, Samsung)

    FIFA have to challenge this. Instead of looking at this through your anti-Blatter glasses, put yourself in FIFA’s place.
    And then, honestly, what would you do?

  23. But I’ll look into a link to the T&C’s – I haven’t had to even consider that before, because generally, people don’t act like twats.

    If you’re going to censor comments, then at least insert T&Cs somewhere easily visible. “Acting like twats” is subjective anyway. What you find offensive might be welcomed by others. Unless you believe you’re the one setting the standards of conversation ethics?

    I’m not suggesting that Kulula’s ad will end the World Cup.

    There you go. That said it all. 🙂

    But what I am saying is that if it remains unchallenged by FIFA, that sets a precendent.

    A precedent for what? Funny advertising that pokes fun at you-know-what? So you-know-who are allowed to trademark words and concepts INCLUDING words and concepts not even defined by them? That’s just silly.

    Which in turn opens the door to this constantly happening and yes – eventually could have the effect of reducing willing sponsorship of major events.

    To WHAT constantly happening? Satirical advertising? If sponsors pull out because they have no sense of humour, then FIFA will have to work harder at finding sponsors who aren’t so insecure.

    FIFA have to challenge this. Instead of looking at this through your anti-Blatter glasses, put yourself in FIFA’s place.
    And then, honestly, what would you do?

    FIFA won’t challenge it. They can’t. And everyone knows it. They will have to provide evidence of damages incurred, and if they win, it will ruin the freedom of creative and opportunistic advertising. FIFA should laugh and worry about less hysterical things.

    Answer the question, 6000: What EXACTLY have Kulula done wrong?

  24. JtG > Well, actually, I am the one setting the standard of conversation ethics on here. Being that it’s my blog and all.
    If you don’t like it, you can have a full refund.

    FIFA have challenged the ad. That’s what the letter was about. That’s what started this whole thing anyway.
    My sense of humour is very much intact. The ad is amusing. I’ll even go so far as to say that the follow up ad is “very funny”.

    In the same way, a joke Julius Malema tells at an ANCYL rally might be “funny”, but it might also consititute hate speech.

    So what have Kulula done wrong? They contravened this act:

    Apart from the protection afforded by the registration of the names and symbols above as trademarks, legislation has been enacted in South Africa specifically in order to provide protection to the organisers and sponsors of high profile events, like the World Cup, that are inevitable targets for ambush marketing. This legislation includes amendments to the Trade Practices Act, section 15A(1) of the Merchandise Marks Act and the First and Second 2010 FIFA World Cup Special Measures Acts (“the SMAs”).

    as described in full, here.

    And I quote:

    While some may regard ambush marketing as simply smart business, the law does prohibit it and any business person seeking to capitalise on an event such as the World Cup should take care to ensure that the limits of what is permissible are not exceeded.

    and

    But for sporting bodies, occasional accusations of heavy-handedness are a small price to pay for the protection afforded to sponsors by strictly enforcing legislation against ambush marketing. Dr. Owen Dean, a partner at Spoor & Fisher, says that in order for sponsors to agree to fund an event they must have a guarantee that their rights will be protected.

    “If they don’t get value for money they won’t sponsor events in the future,” he says, adding that organisations like FIFA will not award a country an event without such guarantees. (link)

    Someone should have said that before. Or did I?

  25. Well, actually, I am the one setting the standard of conversation ethics on here.

    Then it would be nice of you to make those ethics public so that we may jointly enjoy such political correctness.

    FIFA have challenged the ad. That’s what the letter was about. That’s what started this whole thing anyway.

    I meant legally. Sending a threatening letter is not much more than trying to show how big their you-know-what is. It will get exciting for Kulula and those of us who don’t worship FIFA if it goes legal

    So what have Kulula done wrong? They contravened this act:

    Wrong.

    Here’s why:
    “Apart from the protection afforded by the registration of the names and symbols above as trademarks, legislation has been enacted in South Africa specifically in order to provide protection to the organisers and sponsors of high profile events, like the World Cup, that are inevitable targets for ambush marketing.”

    Ambush marketing is:

    A marketing strategy in which a competing brand attempts to attach a product to a major event (usually sporting in nature) without paying …

    Kulula isn’t a competing brand of FIFA. FIFA don’t have planes. If their official sponsors have planes, then THEY will have to take legal action and then prove that Kulula have “ambushed” them.

    It’s a slippery slope and will never end up in court.

  26. Plus, “ambush marketing” is vague and unspecific. It will end being an argument of who’s opinion is more correct.

    And I doubt that any reasonable judge will favour FIFA’s opinion.

  27. JtG > Those T&C’s have always been public. Now there’s even a link for them from the comments page.
    Just for people like you. Now I won’t have to ban you again. Probably.
    Like I said, 4 bans in 5,500 comments speaks volumes. And tells me that most people are just generally respectful.

    Meh. Regarding your Kulula competing with FIFA thing, FIFA are just protecting the rights of their paying partners.
    You know that, I know that.

    Please – less of the straw-clutching.

    UPDATE (as you commented again):

    Woah! But hold on.
    You “doubt that it will end up in court”, but then you “doubt that any reasonable judge will favour FIFA’s opinion”?
    What judge? Is this going to court after all, then? All rise!

    Do you think that this is the first time FIFA has encountered this? Really?
    Do you think that they haven’t seen it all before and have the protocols and procedures in place to deal with it?
    SA changed the law for FIFA so that this World Cup could go ahead.
    If you think FIFA aren’t covered for this, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.

  28. Please – less of the straw-clutching.

    Actually, it’s YOU clutching at straws and you know that. You’ve sided with you-know-who™ because you love soccer and because you don’t mind corporate bullying (in the name of “we must protect our insecure sponsors”).

    You also know that you-know-who™ stand no legal chance of defeating Kulula (who probably did their homework before launching the ad).

  29. No, it isn’t going to court, that I know.

    And like I said, it won’t because FIFA will lose and the world will laugh at them for trying to be Goliath versus David, all because of a funny little ad.

    Laugh. It will do you (and you-know-who™) some good.

  30. One last comment (because I need to you-know-what)…

    We all know that Kulula were taking the piss (hope that’s not a rude word), but we also all know that Kulula’s ad will do no damage to you-know-who™ and the World-you-know-what.

    To jump on the “ambush marketing” bandwagon will be a short slippery ride because defining “ambush marketing” legally will take too much time and effort (and the World Cup will have successfully come and gone).

  31. JtG > Here’s me wondering why I was “sided with FIFA” and all along, you knew and didn’t tell me.
    Actually, not.

    I’m merely siding with the law. Like I do when it comes to murders and taxi driver. And murderous taxi drivers.
    I take my stand based on the facts available to me. Not on my opinions of sport or big corporations.

    But since we seem to be in the business of mind-reading, why don’t I suggest that you have formed your opinions solely on the “trendiness” of Kulula’s ads and the “it’s cool to be on the” bandwagon of anti-FIFA sentiment that seems to run, ill-informed and ill-thought out, through the veins of this nation.

  32. JtG > That you-know-what always gets in the way, hey?

    That’s one thing Kulula never answered. If the “You-Know-What” in their ad wasn’t the World Cup, then what was it?

    Happy “you-know-whatting” and I’m sure I’ll see you again when the next “creative” people break some more rules.

  33. That’s one thing Kulula never answered. If the “You-Know-What” in their ad wasn’t the World Cup, then what was it?

    They’re not obliged to answer, and leave the interpretation up to the public. If you’re so sure what it is, then why do you want to know? FIFA seem to think they know too, which is why they sent a letter.

    SAB felt that a little t-shirt company was ambushing their brand, and also sent a threatening letter. Look where it got them in the end.

    Satire is protected under South African law. It’s reasonable to assume that Kulula (like Nandos) have a history of satire. This ad isn’t any different, and the reasonable mind can see that, which is why nothing more will come of this threatening letter. If it were an SAA ad, let’s say, then it might be a different story.

    Okay, now I’m really off.

  34. JtG > Not an SAA ad. No. But of course, Kulula is owned by Comair. And Comair is a BA company.
    So in effect this is BA advertising.

    Laugh it Off and SAB is all very interesting, as was Hereford v Newcastle back in 1972, but it’s no use citing occasional victories for David as cause for suggesting the likely outcome. Goliath wins 99% of the time. Which might not be as popular, but popularity isn’t everything.

  35. but popularity isn’t everything.

    Neither is the law, which isn’t always right anyway. Which is why precedent cases would become important if FIFA go legal. It’s unlikely that the Laugh It Off precedent will be overturned any time soon.

    That said, you’ve still not provided concrete evidence (other than vague and flimsy terminology and conjectured questions) that Kulula have “ambushed” FIFA.

  36. JtG > The law isn’t always right?
    OhhKay.
    When is the law wrong then? When it doesn’t suit? Are you telling me those taxi drivers have had it right all these years?
    Damn. No wonder they’re claiming persecution.

    And though it might be vague, flimsy and conjecture to you, I think that it’s pretty clear that Kulula have broken the code as is helpfully set out in that document I helpfully linked to earlier.

  37. In response to desperate pleas from one (or both) loyal readers, I’m closing comments on this one.
    Watch out for the next installment of “We hate FIFA for no ther reason other than it’s considered de rigueur“, almost certainly coming soon to a post near here.

Leave a Reply