Skip to content →


  1. Pete Martin

    Pete Martin

    I read this and thought that they were being screwed over unfairly. Then I saw the adverts in question, and in my own opinion, “sub-standard material” is sexual assault, a hairy arse and a fat bloke pissing. I would have been furious if I paid for this. Then again, I reckon this is all part of the campaign. Virals work well with backstories.

  2. Pete Martin

    Pete Martin

    Kudos for making sure people get paid, after people’s hard work.

  3. Warren Ellis

    Warren Ellis

    If you commissioned work, and put it through two passes, then you fucking pay for that work, regardless of whether you like it or not.

  4. Pete Martin

    Pete Martin

    That seems to be the agency’s fault, isn’t it? I suppose them getting paid and someone else getting sacked would have been better, I suppose.

  5. Hey Peter. Unfortunately, sexual assault, a hairy arse and a fat bloke pissing is *exactly* what the agency asked for. I actually toned it down from what they wanted, because they wanted to make it even more crass.

    Ah well.

  6. Pete Martin

    Pete Martin

    Christ, really? It was the “we don’t want you to follow our instruction” thing that threw me.
    My sympathies.
    Unless you tell me this is still all part of an even more elaborate viral campaign. I’m on to you.

  7. Karen Jones

    Karen Jones

    I agree with Warren. If you sign off the video twice then you pay for it. From what I can see it was the client ‘Boggle’ that decided that the videos were not up to scratch. Therefore why is the agency to blame? Boggle agreed the storyboard…Boggle agreed the first cut….and at the end of the day they should pay.

Comments are closed.