How to Torpedo Your Brand: Sue a Museum
Posted in Politics, Presentism on 03. Jul, 2009
PEZ museum by jek in the box. Used under Creative Commons.
There is a reason that the Museum of Brands, Packaging and Advertising in London is “associated” (I don’t fully understand how) with a branding consultancy. Pi global call their business philosophy “Iconistic” and what better way is there to… iconify… a brand than making it a museum piece?
It beggars belief that Pez Candy Inc. are now suing the Burlington Museum of Pez Memorabilia.
Fools. They sent their legal team to flap their heads back and spit out a summons over a seven-foot replica and some political merchandise. If they take issue with it being “unauthorised”, then they should damn well make it official. The people running the museum love Pez and want to share the Pez love. I’m sure they would love some recognition from the company alongside the Guinness World Record. A quiet word to stop them selling politically branded Pez would have probably been enough.
If they had any sense, they would have spent the legal fees on donations/trusteeship to an institution that’s been getting some great write ups. Museums are representative, so by suing them you’re essentially suing your own customers.
Are they nuts? Someone is advertising their product for free, drumming up lots of enthusiasts for them and they’re suing them. Sheesh, a lot of brands just don’t get how the world has changed, do they.
I live not far from the Pez Museum which is in Burlingame, California v. Burlington. It’s a tiny storefront.
My husband and I were reading about this in our local free paper… he was commenting that this is typical copyright protection behavior– if you want a brand or IDd to remain intact, you have to go out and aggressively protect it. I’m not at all saying I think what they did was a good thing- they could have just picked up the damn phone.
The corporate giant that is Pez [sic] is definitely being wastefully heavy-handed. However, any press may be good press for this museum.
Come to think about it, even though all the reports say copyright infringement it feels far more like a trademark infringement.
But this hasn’t kept their brand intact. Look at PEZ. There is a reason there are million of different versions. It’s because their *brand* is that of a collectable. The candy is pretty nondescript. The dispenser is the important thing that they encourage the collecting of.
There is no brand-protection in suing your best collector. In fact, this is the worse thing they could have done.
In answer to your opening line: The support that the Museum of Brands gets from pi global has been fundamental to the success of the Museum in London. How many museums could launch in one of the most attractive areas of London and thrive? Pi global formed the charity, raised the finance, created the identity, recruited the staff and supply finance/management/admin/technical resource daily.
In 2001 after 17 years in Gloucester the Museum of Packaging and Advertising was forced to move due to the development of the docks. Fortunately pi global also after 17 years of successful trading were moving into a new building in Notting Hill and had their old building to redevelop. After 4 years of hard work the Museum of Brands, Packaging and Advertising launched at the end of 2005. It is well worth a visit, Anna – Museum Manager
Thanks Anna for commenting, I am a big fan of MoBPA and I must visit again soon.
A question I want to ask, what is pi global’s ongoing relationship with the museum? Are they a “trustee” or part of the directorship? How much are they involved in the running of the place? Specifically, collection policy? Or do they use it as a large research resource about branding?