Well, Michael Bay has spoken. The epic director of Transformers and Armageddon was the sole judge in Sprint’s “Epic Contest” in which filmmakers were asked to submit their most epic short, short films. The contest got some really entertaining entries but in the end, here’s the video that Mr. Bay deemed to be the most Epic of all:
Grand Prize Winner. Prize: $25,000.
You know what, I liked it. I watched the other finalists and that’s probably the one I would have picked too.
AND SPEAKING OF THINGS THAT ARE EPIC, I just wanted to make a quick mention of the fact that November turned out to be Videocontestnews.com’s biggest month ever! Just before midnight on the 30th we got our 10,000th unique visitor of the month. That’s crazy! Obviously the huge spike in traffic came from people interested in the Crash the Super Bowl contest. We got a simmilar (though not as epic) spike thanks to our Crash coverage last year and I’m happy to report that a lot readers stuck with us even during the CTSB off-season. So I’m hoping 2011 turns out to be a big year for us. If you’re new to the site, thanks for checking us out. We’ve been getting record numbers of comments lately and I think it really makes the site more entertaining and more informative so keep ‘em coming. And If you ever have some contest news you’d like to share or if you need help with a contest that’s being run un-fairly, please let us know at videocontestnews@gmail.com.
Last week, Skinit.com announced the six winners of their 2nd annual commercial contest and I have to say, I’m pretty disappointed with the results. Scratch that. I’m not disappointed…I just feel like an idiot. For months I’ve been promoting the Skinit contest and encouraging V.C.N. readers to enter because I thought it was a great example of a fair and smartly-run contest. But in the end, the judges made some decisions that are just totally inexplicable. In last year’s installment of this contest the company picked several high-quality winners and then aired three of those ads on television. I exchanged some e-mails last week with a representative from Skinit and she said the company plans on doing the same thing this year, though they haven’t decided yet which of the 6 winners they’ll air.
However, I don’t see how they could air any of this year’s winners on TV. Some of the selected ads are just not technically good enough. But the big problem with Skinit’s choices is that of the 6 category winners they chose, at least 5 of those videos don’t actually feature the products they are advertising.
The “Skins” that Skinit sells aren’t exactly cheap; “Wall Skins” and “Tailgate Skin” packs go for about 100 bucks each. Still, a lot of filmmakers plunked down the cash and ordered those products so they could use them in their ads. But Skinit decided to reward a lot of filmmakers that didn’t even care enough to actually buy their products. At least 5 of the winning videos either used only stock images of skins from the Skinit website or they faked their “skins” with green screens and graphics. (I say “at least 5″ of the 6 winners don’t feature real products because I’m unsure about this one. I THINK those are real “tailgate Skins.”) Anyway, check out this video that won the “60 Second Tailgate Skin” category to see an obvious case of CGI skins:
Category Winner, 60 second Tailgate Skins. Prize: $5,000
That’s actually a very excellent commercial and will probably be one of the ads that wind up on TV. But would that be a smart decision for Skinit.com? The “Skins” in this ad are clearly graphics that were inserted during editing. Would Butterfinger ever pick a winning commercial that featured digital candy bars? Of course not. If the product has to be faked to be included in the ad, the consumer concludes that there must be something wrong with the appearance of that product. I mean, the whole point of “skins” is how good they look, right? Here’s another example of what I’m talking about. This is the winner of the “30 second wall skin” category:
Category Winner, 30 Second Wall Skins. Prize: $5,000
The idea is cute but again, it doesn’t show you the actual product. There were tons of really great, high-quality commercials submitted to this contest. Couldn’t the judges find any they liked that featured real versions of what they’re trying to sell? Even the two “Electronic Device” category winning videos are Skin-less and a cell phone skin is only like 10 bucks. The judges’ decision to pick so many videos that faked their skins or that only used stock images comes off as an insult to all the filmmakers that actually cared enough to purchase and feature the products they were supposed to be promoting.
If the fake-skin issue was the only problem with the results of this contest, I probably wouldn’t even mention it. But the Skinit judges also did something that I really hate; they picked a winner that clearly should have been disqualified because it violated the rules. And not only did they pick that video as one of the 6 winners, it actually won the grand prize of $25,000. Of the 170+ entries they received, here is the commercial that Skinit felt was the best of the bunch. It was submitted to the “60 second Wall Skin” category. See if you can spot the issue that should have gotten it disqualified:
Grand Prize Winner: Prize: $25,000
Ok, you were probably too distracted by the quality of that ad to notice anything that should have gotten it disqualified. I don’t think I will ever understand how a group of judges could all agree that the above video was the best entry that they received. Wasn’t the point of this contest to pick a winner that could air on television? I’ll admit, the idea for this ad is cute but its technical issues are just impossible to ignore. It’s just not at all pleasing to look at and the green-screened in “wall skin” looks very unnatural. Probably the weirdest thing about this ad though is that the dubbed in, out-of-sync audio gives the whole thing a strange, creepy vibe.
But besides the technical issues, there’s another reason this ad will never air on TV. And it’s the same reason it should have been disqualified. Check out this screen grab from the start of the video:
Hey! There’s a commercial in that commercial! The editor of that ad obviously worked hard to disguise all the billboards in the Times Square scenes but there was just nothing that could be done to discreetly blur out the Hyundai Tuscon commercial that was playing behind the lead actress in the opening shots. I just re-watched the entry and noticed several recognizable billboard for the musicals Chicago, American Idiot and Promises, Promises too. (check the first shots of the “wall skin.”) All of those show images and names are copyright-protected and trademarked. Here’s what Skinit’s official rules say about such things:
Each Submission … must not infringe any party’s intellectual property or other rights; it must be suitable for display and publication on national television
Each Submission must not contain any copyrighted works (other than as owned by the Entrant, group or any individual member of the group).
Submission may not contain or refer to any company/brand other use third party names, logos, or trademarks other than Skinit, Inc. and Skinit.com.
Skinit reserves the right in its sole discretion to remove or blur or to ask the applicable Entrant to remove or blur any non-material elements (e.g. logos on clothing, vehicles, devices, images in the background, etc.) rather than disqualify an otherwise compliant Submission.
According to Skinit’s own rules, that video should have been rejected when it was submitted. Then (at their sole discretion) Skinit could have asked the creator of that ad to blur out the SUV commercial and the billboards and resubmit. They didn’t do that though. Instead they let a video with hardcore copyright issues into the contest and then awarded that video the top prize. Copyright infringement is no joke folks and you don’t get a pass just because you’re not a “professional” filmmaker. If Skinit aired that ad on tv they would get sued. Actually, Skinit and the person who made that ad could get sued RIGHT NOW by Hyundai. (That’s a Hyundai Tuscon ad playing in the background) The creator of the ad used footage and trademarks that Hyundai owns in a video and sold the work for $25,000. And Skinit is featuring the ad on their website even though they know they have no right to display some of the copyrighted material in that ad.
Before I wrap up this post I’d like to mention one thing; I can’t blame ANYONE for winning a video contest as long as they do it fair and square. Just because I feel that Skinit should have picked some videos that featured their real products that doesn’t mean the folks who did win this contest should be anything but thrilled and proud about their accomplishment. It’s not their fault at all that the judges made some bad decisions. In fact. I’m sure every category winner is way more upset and confused about Skinit’s choice for the grand prize than I am. Now that I think about it, Skinit doesn’t even explain WHY they picked the videos that they did. I’m really curious as to why they thought they Times Square ad was better than the other 5 category winners. It’d be nice if they actually explained their choices on the website. Actually, it’d be nice if they just listed the names of the winners on the site. Since all the entries had to be uploaded to the Skinit youtube channel, and since Skinit didn’t name any of the winners, we have no idea who made those ads. It just looks a little suspicious. Just 3 weeks ago I saw a really fishy video win a local Chicago video contest and so I googled the name of the sponsor (a local charity) and the name of the winner. Sure enough, the winner of the $20,000 contest prize performed every year at an annual party the charity held. They knew the filmmaker so well they were even helped throw an event in her honor after someone defaced one of her art projects. So if Skinit would at least tell us WHO won their contest we could check to make sure they don’t like, you know…work for them or share the same last name as one of the judges.
But I digress. You know what, I’ll end this post on a positive note. Here’s the entry that’s probably my favorite of the winners. What’s really funny is that the guy who made this ad just won a $15,000 runner-up prize in the Godaddy commercial contest and he used the exact same character in both entries. Here’s his godaddy ad: http://www.video.me/EventShow.aspx?vid=3391
Category Winner, 60 Second Consumer Electronics. Prize: $5,000
There are a lot of video contests that I regret entering last year. Some of them were terribly run, others wasted contestants time by requiring them to shill for votes and still others yielded winners that were so inexplicably bad that you couldn’t help but wonder if maybe the whole thing had been rigged.
But there’s one 2009 contest I regret NOT entering; the Skinit.com TV challenge. Skinit makes sticker-type things that are designed to fit any kind of electronic device you can think of. Visit their site and you’ll get what I’m talking about: Skinit.com. Anyway, I was so impressed with their contest that after it ended I reviewed it in an article called “Profile of a Great contest: Skinit.com.” I interviewed a nice representative from Skinit for that piece named Shreya and last week, she e-mailed to let me know that Skinit had just announced that they were bringing the contest back for 2010 and that it was going to be even bigger than last year.
And she wasn’t kidding. Last year, the first place winner took home $10,000, a runner-up got $5,000 and the winner of the best storyboard entry also go $5,000. This year, there will be 6 categories: 1. Consumer Electronics ( 30 sec) 2. Consumer Electronics (60 sec) 3. Tailgate Packs (30 sec) 4. Tailgate Packs (60 sec) 5. WallSkins (30 sec) 6. WallSkins (60 sec)
One winner in each category will get $5,000 and then one overall winner will be awarded and extra $20,000. And as a bonus, the winning entry (and maybe even some of the runners-up) will have the chance to be shown on TV.
Last year, I entered just about any contest I could find if I thought I had a chance of winning. But this year I’m really trying to focus my efforts. And the skinit challenge is just the type of contest I love coming across. My favorite contests are those that provide lots of opportunities for people to win. It’d be awesome to win $25,000 but winning 5 grand would be pretty sweet too. The only thing that worries me is that the rules say that “popularity/public vote” will be one of the criteria used to determine the winners.
Hopefully it will not be a significant factor though. I don’t care how much money is at stake, I’ve pretty much sworn off all video contests that let “the public” pick the winners because those winners invariably turn out to be whoever has the largest social network or the time to vote for themselves over and over and over. But based on the skinit rules, it doesn’t seem like this is going to just be a popularity contest.
The deadline to enter the contest is still 99 days away so there’s lots of time to plan for this one. I for sure will be entering and I’m planning on going completely overboard….assuming I can think of an idea, that is.
Since the dawn of man, pistachios have been just these tasty little nuts that always happened to be around exactly when you were craving them. No one ever planned ahead of time to buy Pistachios, they just appeared when they were needed. But last year, a brand called “Wonderful Pistachios” decided this had gone on long enough so they started putting Pistachios in pretty bags and then marketed the f&*% out of them with commercials featuring Z-list celebrities like Levi Johnston.
One tier of the company’s marketing campaign was a commercial contest. Wonderful Pistachios picked 10 finalist videos and then let “the public” decide the best one. First place was good for $25,000. The people have spoken and here’s the winner:
First Place. Prize: $25,000
Some of the finalists were pretty lame so I’m kind of surprised the public vote yielded a decent winner. The video’s got nice production values, fancy editing, good music and lots of nut shots (you know, shots of nuts.) So it’s a job well done. But I think the guy that made THIS entry got robbed:
Runner up. Prize: $500. Prize declined by filmmaker
Apparently, the director of that entry thinks he was robbed too. His name is Michael Boudin and he’s won more that $60K in various video contests. I know that because a few weeks ago, Films4Prizes.com did a video Q&A with him. You can see it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXT77SZHU3s
After the winner was picked, Michael was offered a $500 runner-up prize. He turned it down though. I’ll cash just about any check that comes my way but I think he made the right call. As Michael explains on youtube, he believes in his concept and plans to re-shoot the idea for a different contest. If he had accepted the 500 bucks, Wonderful Pistachios would have been able to do whatever they wanted with the video, concept and script. Basically they offered to buy it for a few hundred bucks and said “no deal.”
So think about that the next time you see a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo in a contest’s official rules that state that all entries become the property of the sponsor once you submit them. That’s total B.S. Your work is yours until you SIGN over your rights of ownership. You always have a right to say, “No thanks” and you shouldn’t accept just any amount a company offers if you don’t think it’s a fair price for your work.
Now, when the voting period ended I predicted that the posted scores would change dramatically before the winners were announced because Butterfinger would check for vote fraud and throw out multiple votes that all came from the same IP address. Well….I was half right. The final vote counts are now very different than what they were when voting ended. Except, ummmmm, everyone’s vote totals went UP and not down.
Each of the four finalist videos each have at least 1,000 more votes today then they did when the voting ended. The vote buttons were removed from the site when the contest closed so there’s no way people could have somehow been casting votes since then. (Click here to see the Butterfinger vote totals as they were on September 23rd and click here to see the vote totals as the are today.)
So what happened? Why did the winning video, “Butterfinger Phone App” have 12,974 votes on September 23rd but now has 16,556 votes on October 4th? Where did 3582 new votes come from in that time?? I actually don’t think anything shady went on with the vote. Now that I see that it was a massive blow out (the 2nd place video has 13,626 votes) I think the chance there was large-scale fraud by any of the contestants is slim. Without the aid of some kind of voting program there’s no way to generate that many fake votes. So Beardy decrees this to be a clean win for Butterfinger Phone App.
But the question remains; why did the vote totals jump after the contest ended? My guess is that votes in different parts of the country were registered on different servers. So in the last 2 weeks, Butterfinger had to seek out every vote and add it to the total. That’s a really crappy way to run a vote though. Youtube sort of works that way (ever wonder why your view count only goes up in big jumps after you hit 300 views?) but youtube tabulates its info from all its servers a few times a day. Why wouldn’t the butterfinger vote work the same way? Would butterfinger withhold votes on purpose to keep the contest competitive? On the day that voting ended, the first and second place videos were only separated by less than 700 votes. How did that slim margin turn into a 2928 lead for Butterfinger Phone App? This does seem sort of shady and I think it might have been an intentional tactic on Butterfinger’s part. Whatever the case, I suspect the jumping Butterifnger scores will always remain a video contest mystery.
