Well it’s finally D (for Doritos) day. Last night, at midnight central time, Doritos revealed the Top 6 finalists for their 2010 installment of the Crash the Superbowl commercial contest. The prize for making it to this round is $25,000 and a trip to the big game for each filmmaker.
Voting is now open and the public will decide which three of these submissions make it to the Superbowl. The finalists are:
“Underdog” AKA “Animal Cruelty” by jwsvoboda. Video #5584.
“The Smackout” by bhayword. Video #5511
“Casket” AKA “The Casket” by ms. Video #4374
“Snack Attack Samurai” by CBer. Video #1786
“House Rules” by Dejesus_77. Video #3713
“Kids These Days” by Blackmariastudios. Video #5427
You can watch all the videos and vote for your favorite at the Crash the Superbowl site.
I had figured that when the finalists were announced I would post the results and share my impressions but….I have no idea what to say here. There are two spots that I prefer but the rest are just…baffling. I know that I recommended that Doritos consider some entries for the top 6 that were rough around the edges but I never thought they’d choose entries that had actual technical flaws.
I am also feeling pretty burned about “The Casket” making the finals. As I’ve mentioned, my entry for the Crash the Superbowl contest, “Rest in Chips” was also about a guy who faked his death and in accordance with his fake last wish was buried in a casket full of Doritos that gets knocked over. As I explained in yesterday’s post and this post from November 19th, I suspect that I might be the victim of plagiarism. If you watch both entries and ignore the superficial aesthetic elements (camera quality, location, actors, costumes) and compare the concept and story elements (fake funeral, a final wish, a casket of doritos, knocked over casket etc) it’s hard to deny that both videos MAY have both based on my original concept (which anyone could have seen in a storyboard I posted to youtube in October.) But even if I wasn’t plagiarized, my video was posted first. I never expected to make it to the finals but a major part of each entry’s score was “Originality.” And I believe that I read that if two similar ideas were posted, the originality score of the video that was uploaded second would take a hit. I even e-mailed Doritos and told them about my plagiarism concerns and so I can’t believe that “The Casket” still made it. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that they almost are hoping for controversy.
Since I’m sort of at a loss for words right now, how about I turn the discussion over to you? What do you guys think of the finalists? Let us know in the comment section…..
UPDATE: SWEET JUMPING JESUS!!! It turns out that TWO of the entries in the top 6 were created by the same people! They are posted under different names but both “Kids these Days” and “Underdog” are products of a company called 5 Point Productions. That blows my mind!! People are going to flip the F#$% out when they hear about this. I think “Underdog” is great but the other entry is just ok. Doritos couldn’t spread the wealth around a little? In no way do I blame the 5 Point Productions people for this. Good for them for kicking so much ass. They couldn’t find ONE more decent spot among the 4067 that were posted!?
Posted in 
Tags: 
Just to let you know. They are NOT made by Black Maria Studios, they are made by 5 Point Productions. Black Maria Studios does not exist, it is just a username.
Also, we’re not really a studio or production company anyway, just a group of friends who submitted 2 different adds and got lucky. We’ll have our website up soon that kind of tells our story.
doritoscontest.com
Thanks for the info Kyle. I hope you don’t take my comments as a slight against you guys. Underdog is my favorite of the top 6 and I named it in my list of predictions a week or two ago. I even predicted it would make the top 6, the superbowl and one of the top three spots on the ad meter. We get a pretty healthy amount of visitors to the site these days so if you’d like to use VCN as a vote-getting resource just let us know.
Hm, don’t the rules say each group is allowed up to 10 entries but only one finalist status? :/ And since you won two slots, does that mean your getting twice the finalist prizes. Thats pretty cool XD
~Robert
What do I think of the finalists? I think the blow. Thanks a lot for wasting our time doritos. I dont think half of these are good enough for the superbowl. I think doritos didn’t want to shell out 5 million bucks so they made sure to pick lame videos that wold never make the top 3.
I like Snack attack Samurai best though. It would do well on the ad meter. The rest are not so hot and some of them would totally tank during teh superbowl. I’m not even going to bother to vote though. This sucks. House rules is funny for 5 seconds and boring the rest of the time. it is clear doritos only picked because the actors were african american. In the smackout, the picture turns gray when the camera is on the girls. totally amateur. I don’t know if the casket video ripped you off but I do know that the tv in the coffin dissapears when falls over. again, totally amateur.
Beardy,
I’ve read your plagiarism claims again and again; honestly, I just don’t see that they’re valid.
I can guarantee, if you have an idea then there are at least a dozen people out there with the _same_ idea. It all boils down to execution. And this time, two people executed the concept in their own distinct way. I just think, you should point out the differences in the projects as well as their similarities.
wow, these finalists are really, really bad. the only one that is halfway decent is the casket one, but now it’s looking like it’s a total rip-off! I expected all 6 to make me chuckle, but I guess I was wrong. looks like the only criteria for winning this contest is a RED camera and the ability to pander to the banal masses.
http://www.crashthesuperbowl.com/#/video/2320 — my entry. /shameless plug … I wouldn’t feel so pissed about losing (out of 4000 entries, hell its expected) if the winners were halfway decent. grr.
Oh, I see how this works now. Differing opinions from yours get deleted.
hack.
Hey, I didn’t write that!
well, at least no one can say Doritos only picks the slick high end production value stuff!
They also pick ads that are just ok.
That’s funny David but you have a point.
jumpingeric,
WordPress blogs are a magnet for spam. So each comment has to be approved by me. I haven’t checked my e-mail in about 8 hours so that means I have a backlog of comments.
As for the differences in the two commercials, they are mostly superficial. You have to look at it with the eye of a director. If you have a basic concept, and you don’t have a million dollars to spend, you have to adapt your idea to fit the locations you have at your disposal. I had a large outside are so I set my commercial in a cemetery. They had a church so they used that. Obviously, the same, exact idea won’t work in the church because everyone will be far away from the casket and it can’t get kicked over into a hole. So a director thinks, how else can the casket fall over? It can fall down the stairs of course. Once the director comes up with the new way for the casket to fall, the rest of the spot writes itself.
Eric, think of it like this; Television commercials have been around for let’s say, 70 years now. In all that time, in the entire history of TV commercials, no one has ever created a commercial where a guy fakes his death, claims his last wish was to be buried in his favorite food, gets in a casket of that food, has a picture of himself enjoying that food next to the casket, the guy turns out to be alive and his casket gets knocked over.
And now, after 70 years of TV commercials, two guys, totally independent of each other both come up with the same concept in the same month, for the same contest? This is not the same as 20 people shooting “paper football” doritos ads. This is a really weird, random idea. At the very least, doritos should not have picked “casket” because it was too similar to another entry.
Just letting you know that the website is up.
http://www.doritoscontest.com/
Any help you could give us with votes would be GREATLY appreciated. As you can see we need them.
OMG! Crash The Stupid Bowl or CTBS. What a absolute sham! The top 6 are pedestrian compared to a lot of the ads.I can only conclude two things. One. No repeat winners from last year. Two. The weirder the better, even if it is not funny. I did not laugh out loud or even want to see any of these ads more than once. the novelty wears off quick and the humor is childish and uninspired. The sad part is that there were some really good spots. I wonder if Doritos gets to use them or even if people post them on the net it is free advertising for them! Damn those suits got the best of us! We thought we were smart but they took our lunch money and slapped us in the face. In a way I hope this blows up in their face and people stop spending hard earned money to make free commercials for a bunch of corporate rapists.
http://www.5pointproductions.com/
If you notice on their “reel” they were a finalist in another doritos contest. I do remember seeing that spot on TV. They must be the luckiest doritos contestants ever. Pretty interesting don’t you think. I like the old spot better than the new submissions by the way.
Sue, that’s a pretty serious indictment of the Crash the Superbowl contest. But your arguments carry a lot of weight since you (or someone using your e-mail address) contacted me yesterday and said that you were friends with the makers of “The Casket” and that I was “nuts,” “delusional,” “and “a sore loser.” So it’s kind of shocking to see you back here bashing all of the finalists. But if those are your opinions, I have to respect them.
In fact, it is very brave of you to admit that all of the finalists, including your friend’s video “Casket” are “not funny,” and “childish and uninspired.” I personally thought several of the spots are very good. Even I will admit that “Casket” is the most slickly produced of the top 6. But I do commend you for speaking your mind even though it means admitting that you don’t think your friends did a good job and they don’t deserve to be finalist. You’re hardcore Sue, hardcore.
By the way, it sounds like you entered a commercial. I’d love to see it. Which one was yours?
I was so bummed when i didn’t win, I had come up with the Speak Doritos campaign and i really thought they’d love it as they’d be able to make a bunch of them. Anyway, i was prepared to be blown away by the 6 finalists and after seeing what they chose i agree with most everyone else that they are rather boring. None of them had me really laughing at all, 2 of them were clever, but that was about it…and after reading what Sue wrote, i’m wondering if she’s correct. I’m also wondering if Doritos is able to use any and all the concepts and ideas that were entered, thereby rendering all of us who submitted, for lack of a better phrase, Screwed… hmmm.. P.S. Are we able to re-edit and modify are submissions and resubmit them next year? just curious, as i feel better graphics and color correction could do me some justice.
Justin,
I think I remember “Speak doritos.” Do you have a link?
Entries from the previous year that have been re-edited entries are not allowed though.
Doritos is not allowed to use your ad or ideas any way they want. You would have to sign over your copyright to them. Plus they would need releases from everyone who appeared in the spot. I believe I read that they can use your entry in relation to the contest but they can’t just take it and air your non-finalist entry. Especially since their rules put a price tag on what the spots that air on tv, are worth.
Justin,
Read the rules again. Anything you submit becomes the property of Doritos. Sorry.
Also, wouldn’t it be funny if nobody voted!
Nope, entries do not become property of doritos. Doritos claim that by entering you grant them the “right” to display, distribute, show etc your entry but you still own it. And just because you click “ok” when you “agree” to the terms of service, that mouse click does not override your copyrights. If doritos aired your ad as a commercial and didn’t pay you, you could sue them and win in 5 seconds. Here’s something else from the rules:
“By accepting a prize, Finalist (or Finalist’s parent or legal guardian if Finalist is a minor) agrees, and agrees in writing if requested, that the Submission will be deemed a Work Made For Hire under the Copyright laws of the United States, but if it cannot be so deemed, then the Finalist agrees to irrevocably assign and transfer to Sponsor all of his/her right, title and interest in and to his/her Submission, if any, including all but not limited to all copyright and trademark rights which he or she may have, in the United States and worldwide, therein, for consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. Finalists hereby waive in favor of Sponsor, all rights of “Droit Moral” or “Moral Rights of Authors” or any similar rights or principles of law that Finalist may now or later have to his/her Submission”
So the finalists MUST assign their copyright (that’s the point of a “work for hire” agreement)to doritos if they want their prize. That means doritos does not already own the copyright. If you create a piece of art/media, you own it until you SIGN away your rights.
Hey Beardy,
I will add that even if you sign away your copyrights (Like in the Louisianna Hot Sauce contest) prior to even entering the contest, that you still maintain rights until you have been compensated in an equitable manner and usually commensurate with some industry scale. I mean, if you enter a contest and part of the rules to enter meant you must sign a release of copyright before submitting or before the judging even began, I would bet that a judge would slam the brand and still assert that the contest rules violated the spirit of the protection provided by state and federal law concerning “Moral Rights of Authors”. We will see, because sooner or later suit will be brought. I am actually surprised that one hasn’t already.
In fact, knowing the hubris of most corporations, it would probably be funny to watch a litigation in progress. EG: “Your honor, before entering the contest, all contestants were required to give us their intellectual property free of charge via a copyright release and prior to any form of judging. In this way we were truly free to award anyone we wanted, as we did with my brother Joe, no matter what quality level his submission met. We also have used three of the spots that were entered to great effect in advertising for our brand this last year. The sell through report indicates a large bump in sales but in no way do we feel obligated to compensate the creative who is responsible in any way. In fact we are running a contest every year now and expect to get 200-300 free submissions annually. Aren’t those creatives stupid?”. “And by the way, judge, can we interest you in a year supply of Jock Itch cream?”
As I have asserted before. Just because some company pays a lawyer to draft a Terms and Conditions page, doesn’t mean it will hold up in the court of law.
The video Contest King
than why do they put that stuff in the rules, if it doesn’t mean anything?
Beardy,
I get where you’re coming from.
Like I said, it’s all in the execution of the idea. They put the setting inside a beautiful cathedral, yours was at the back of a cemetery. They chose a lead and support actors in the proper demographic as well. In the end, which of the two has more appeal?
You shouldn’t claim that they stole your idea. You handed it to them, gift-wrapped on youTube. There’s a reason studios use non-disclosure contracts to protect their IP.
You should chalk it up to ‘lessons-learned’.
@David Rorie
1. They ‘have’ to have something in the way of rules, and yes, many people like ‘david rorie’ would look at the rules and not even go to an attorney. This mitigates the volume of potential lawsuits in and of itself.
2. If they showed up in court without ANY defense ‘terms and conditions’page that they could point to, it would be laughable and the gavel would come a slammin’ down before they could even swear anyone in.
3. Laws governing property (including intellectual property) differ from state to state. California tends to protect it’s creative community better than…say….Texas. Few of these marketing companies/brands are familiar with the specific laws of all of the fifty states in which they regularly administer contests. It is why you regularly see verbiage like “Void where prohibited” in the closing sentences of many terms and conditions pages.
Bottom line David, in a civil action, all bets are off, especially where it concerns the power of a judge to decide and a jury to award.
As in Beardy’s case. His best chance at winning any litigation would be if ‘CASKET’ prevailed as a USA Today top ’3′ commercial and Doritos paid them a million bucks. In this scenario I am sure he could find an attorney to work on the case pro bono.
@ Jumping Eric,
That is the one hurdle that Beardy will have to get over if he brings this up before a court. By definition, YouTube is a way for the regular guy to ‘Broadcast to the World’. If the settings were not set to ‘private’ on his video, the defense will argue that he surrendered his right to IP when he broadcast his intention to develop the idea in a published form over the internet.
Not sure exactly where the judge and jury will go on this but they for sure will bring up similar arguments about the two scripts having differences and Beardy will claim that there are more similarities than differences. I wonder if a third party to the lawsuit might be joined for that other coffin spot: …included a bereavement ceremony where the ‘not quite deceased’ male loves his Doritos and is buried with them as a last wish. I know Beardy could argue a strong case for dissimilarities, but a good attorney would make a decent counter argument.
I think the major lesson to be learned here is to never publish our ideas in any open (accessible to the public) forum prior to executing them.
Would anyone here actually ever produce a contest entry for Doritos again ????
Glad to see Beardy in the voice of “Demon advocate,” but a sweep is apparently kosher by contest rules (10+ permitted per acct) so the “window-dressing” either by design or fluke is an artform too
Pleased also to see restrain used in editing so that everyone who’s got something to say get a chance to chip in.
Jumping eric,
You are letting the “execution” of both “Casket” and rest in chips get in your way here. Imagine if you had never seen either finished commercial….now imagine sitting down and reading the scripts for each. Would you still think they are so different?
I am not bitter or upset because my spot did not make the finals. In not way do I belive that the “Casket” kept my entry out of the top 6. I am not trying to debate which is a better or more professionally executed commercial here. I am upset because I feel my idea may have been taken and that they people who took it may use it to make themselves millions of dollars.
But the possible plagiarism problem is no longer my biggest concern. I am now upset because I feel that my copyright has been infringed by the makers of “casket” and Doritos.
Contrary to your opinion that I handed the idea over “gift wrapped,” a person does not surrender their copyrights by uploading a video to youtube. In fact, my copyright argument is much stronger because I can prove that I had the idea first. As soon as I wrote the script, it was automatically copyrighted thanks to US law. And as soon as I created the animated storyboard, the expression of the ideas in the script were copyrighted.
Plagiarism is something that (99.99% of the time) is done intentionally. But copyright infringement can be done ACCIDENTALLY. So even if “Casket” was not based on my entry or storyboard, the first person to create an idea and then express that idea artistically, is the author and owner.
The biggest issue now is that Doritos knew I suspected my idea had been plagiarized and they knew that I had a storyboard on youtube in October but they “purchased” the other video anyway. So it seems that Doritos, even more than the makers of “casket” may have infringed on my copyrights.
Hey Beardy,
I am only playing the devils advocate to make sure you realize you could end up moving forward and ultimately lose a whole bunch more time and money. I definitely think there is a possibility of prevailing in a lawsuit Beardy. Ultimately though the indication of case strength will be wether or not someone is willing to take it on pro bono. And I for one would only pursue it in that manner. It would really suck to end up also losing substantial assets in the process, should you lose your case.
Hey Beardy, thank you so much, i really learned a lot in regards to intellectual property and I feel a whole lot better that they cannot simply use it without contacting me. It might be something they use in the future as the campaign “has legs” haha, learned that term from my ad major roomate. My submission had some slight audio and color problems that I fixed afterwards and uploaded to YouTube ” speak doritos karate in the search.) also, the graphics could be polished a little more. so i’m guessing that might have been some strikes against me, and i’m wondering if its worth it to tweak it a little and resubmit for next year, i imagine were allowed to do that? Anyway, here’s the link to “Speak Doritos”
http://www.crashthesuperbowl.com/#/video/2242
Thanks again for such a cool website and your time. Its much appreciated by so many of us.
Beardy,
Just curious. What would satisfy you? Money? If so how much? Admission of guilt by the spots creators? a public apology? If Doritos bought your ad too?? What would make it o.k.?
-David
u can email me if you don’t want to say that on here. and maybe you shouldn’t.
Justin,
Now I remember Speak Doritos. That’s a funny concept and you for sure should recycle it for another contest.
David,
People will think I’m crazy but it’s hard to put a pricetag on being right. No BS, if the idea was plagiarized and I got an apology and an admission (no need for it to be public) ASAP I would be one happy guy. One thing I would want is a “story by” or “co-written by” credit. But I think that is very, very, very unlikely. I have not heard from anyone associated with “Casket” but a friend or two of theirs have e-mailed to call me names. So they obviously know my positions but they have decided not to contact me. It’s also possible that they are totally innocent and they think I’m just some jerk who wants to wreck their success. I have a feeling this might have to be handled “the hard way” if you know what i mean.
Beardy,
What exactly would you copyright here…the “idea” that a guy falls out of a coffin of doritos? Good luck.
Is the dialogue in your scripts that similar? Seems I remember something about an heir in yours…it’s been awhile since I’ve seen it.
Press on…is my advice. You really don’t have a leg to stand on.
Jumping eric,
An “idea” cannot be copyright. But a script is and so is a storyboard and so is a rough cut and so is video contest entry. Under US law, whoever creates a work, owns the copyright.
Even if someone doesn’t believe that the “Casket” could include plagiarized elements of my entry or my storyboard, any reasonable person would be willing to admit that both ads share an astonishing number of similarities. I have never said that I think Casket is a carbon copy of “Rest in Chips.” My theory is that the writer saw my storyboard and then adapted the idea to fit the location they had access to. That means that certain changes had to be made. (for instance, there is no grave for the casket to fall into in a church. The only was down is down the stairs)
So of course, some changes had to be made (assuming I even was plagiarized and I am the first to admit I have hard proof yet that it was) to fit the logistics of the location. What matters in copyright law is whether or not there is are “substantial similarities” in both ads. Because “Casket” is so much like my idea, my idea is now rendered value-less because of Doritos’ decision. If I were to pitch “Rest in Chips” to a company like Jay’s and replace the Doritos with potato chips, Jays would reject it because the idea would be too similar to an ad that has been seen by the public.
I created the concept/commercial/pitch first and Doritos and their lawyers knew that weeks ago. So by purchasing and promoting “Casket,” Doritos knew they would be rendering my intellectual property worthless. So plagiarism is fast becoming a secondary issue. My immediate goal is to find out why Doritos ignored my copyrights.
Dear Beardy,
Have you thought about the fact that Doritos heard you and probably looked into the matter and found concrete evidence that you don’t have a case against the other video? It seems to me that a company as big as Doritos, who has been doing this competition for a couple years now, probably has lawyers on retainer that check these things before they solidify their top six. Besides the fact that the two commercials are NOT the same (sure there are similar elements, but the stories are completely different), I’m sure Doritos got the information they needed to know that your video wasn’t plagirized. I am sad for you that you’ve felt so distraught over this whole thing, but I think you are making a lot of assumptions and spending a lot of time on an imagined hurt.