Plagiarism, Paperchase and the art of crisis mismanagement

February 14, 2010

Plagiarism, Paperchase and the art of crisis mismanagement

The power of social media has been graphically demonstrated after an independent artist forced the stationery giant Paperchase to apologise over an apparent case of plagiarism. Viral justice has been swift and the crisis management failure by Paperchase has surely tarnished its brand.

For Paperchase a combination of a neglible presence on social networks and then showing woefully inept respect for those who do use social media, has made this a very damaging problem for them – and provides lessons for everyone in business.

Things unravelled very quickly last week after the artist known only as Hidden Eloise blogged about one of her designs being sold on Tote bags by Paperchase; efforts to resolve the claim had proved fruitless. It was also tweeted by her on @hiddeneloise, which was when it started to build momentum.

 

This video proved damning evidence and then fantasy writer Neil Gaiman, tweeted to his almost 1.5 million Twitter followers on @neilhimself : “Fascinating Paperchase plagiarism over at http://bit.ly/cdrzKZ . Bad Paperchase.”

Then it really kicked off! Twitter went nuts and #paperchase became the most popular trending topic on the microblogging website in the UK, Paperchase was deluged with complaints, and scores of people started adding negative reviews to the relevant products on Amazon.

The Paperchase presence on Facebook remained stationary - pun intended - they list a single post, live since they joined back in July 2008 as 'stationary'! More and more bloggers joined in and then of course the national media followed up the story had gone viral and Paperchase were on the back foot.

A rather shellshockedTimothy Melgund, the chief executive of Paperchase, hotly denied any wrong doing to the The Daily Telegraph in a ill considered conversation:

“If we had been plagiarising, I completely understand why we would have received so many emails and Twitter posts concerning our business but we haven’t.

“We bought the designs from a reputable central London Design Studio along with a number of other designs on good faith.

“We take all reasonable precautions when we purchase our designs from companies or individuals, because, to be blunt, we want to make sure they are entitled to sell it.

“We have not done anything wrong. Our reputation is of course very important to us. We spoke at length to the Design Studio in question and they categorically denied any plagiarism.

“What upsets us as a whole is that a lot of our good customers have been angered by this and there is no reason for it.

“We spend a long time building up our reputation for creating dynamic and interesting stationery and then something like this happens.”

Mr Melgund told them the issue raised serious concerns about the “powers, and there in the danger of Twitter. I am sure it can be beneficial but if you get an untruth (on it) it can be very dangerous.”

A belated venture on to Twitter has seen only three posts from Paperchase and those link to a response from Gather No Moss and Paperchase softens its tone slightly, but repeats denials and merrily qualifies apologies.This makes it seem more like a faceless corporate than a caring brand, not least when you consider the next twisty turn of the tale.

The original artist who supplied the designs to Gather No Moss originally denied any plagiarism, however in an email published on Hidden Eloise‘s website, Kitty Mason reveals:

“When Paperchase replied to you I had told them via gather no moss that I had not copied your character which I believed to be true at that time, I now realise that my pose was too close to yours, put my hand up and admit I made a mistake. I am very very distressed by peoples continued criticism of Paperchase. please please please can everyone stop blaming Paperchase for something that was my mistake, they have only acted on the information provided to them.”

So that would seem to prove Hidden Eloise right and Paperchase and Gather No Moss firmly wrong. It is also significant that even with this admission firmly in the public domain, neither has been quick to respond, probably more concerned about liability than reputation. Daft when mitigating one can actually support the other.

What lessons can we learn from this car wreck of crisis management – or rather crisis mismanagement within the inept, socially media ignorant Paperchase? Well, for a start any business should realise that this makes it abundantly clear that ignorance will not mean bliss when you find yourself criticised on social media. More than that, you will need an effective social media presence in order to defend yourself – and that presence will take time to build, so you need to start now!

Crisis management 101 also requires a more coherent and timely response than we saw from Paperchase. It may have been hard to give unqualified apologies when Paperchase could not have known for sure, but surely they could have handled it better?

Morgan PR is well versed in crisis management (after five years making the cops look good at Thames Valley Police teaches you a few tricks!) and we suggest Paperchase should have expressed their heartfelt distress at the suggestion the design was copied (avoid plagiarism and allegation as these are quite inflammatory) and point out they care they take to only use original material.

Do acknowledge the obvious similarity of the two designs (without admitting anything) and announce an urgent investigation and ask for patience. Finally, announce and remove all contested products from the market pending a swift conclusion.

This would have made them look professional and caring and leaves the room to be found wanting after the investigation.

Next, commission the clearly talented Hidden Eloise for a lucrative design series to show how much they really care for independent designers. And maintain that social media presence, not least promoting the designs by Hidden Eloise that the new deal has secured. These would be picked up by the same people who have criticised Paperchase and slowly but surely the damage to its reputation would be countered.

As a bonus, a presence on social media would see them sell more too!

The simple truth is that viral justice via social media, whether right or wrong, equitable or grossly unfair, is going to continue and increase as more people embrace social networking. The sooner you get involved, the sooner you will be ready to defend your reputation in a crisis.


Comments

Claire Thompson said...

Hi Nigel

This pretty much reflects my own views: http://www.wavespr.com/2010/02/pr-lessons-in-paperchase/

I was glad to see that the artist has been vindicated, but also relieved to hear that Paperchase hadn’t been *deliberately* buying knocked off art. In their own way, they are just as much victims of this sorry mess.

(It was worsened by their PR response, but in fairness to them, the glare came faster and stronger than most companies would have been ready to deal with.)

There are two reputations at stake here - the artist's and Paperchase's.

Paperchase didn't deliberately commission knocked off designs - they've bought a design which takes some influence from someone else's work in good faith.

They certainly need some behind the scenes tightening up to make sure that this is less likely to happen again, and an apology is absolutely called for.

I'm not sure, however, that commissioning the artwork wouldn't just be a bit cheesey and look like they were trying to buy off the artist?

It would be nice to see amends that benefit the wider community - the worst possible outcome from this is that Paperchase no longer buy in designs from third parties.

Maybe they could agree that profits from sales of this particular line go into one of the legal funds that helps artists fight plagiarism. Maybe they can create something with the help of legal teams to clearly define what constitutes plagiarism for all artists in future (the artist responsible thought she was only copying a pose, not plagiarising.)

Maybe they can work with the artist to find ways to stop it happening again. Maybe they could work with her to set up some way of championing design on an ongoing basis. Whatever they do, they'll need to have a dialogue with the artist, and unfortunately their only conversations have been played out in public, and there will be very little trust on either side that the conversations won't be taken out of context and thrown to the wolves.

The other reputation at stake now is the artists. She will now have to declare her hand. Does she just want money, or is she after righting a wrong?

The publicity has 'apparently' already generated a ton of extra sales for the artist, from what I've been hearing (all gossip and hearsay, so who knows?), and taken the original work to a whole new audience. I'm sure that with enough effort on both sides, the matter can be resolved elegantly, with the cause of independent designers taken just one stage further, with Hidden Eloise becoming a symbol for something stronger, and with Paperchase becoming a stronger force to champion beautiful design. On line and off.

Claire Thompson, 15/02/2010 12:59
www.wavespr.com
www.twitter.com/claireatwaves
www.linkedin.com/in/claireatwaves
martin warnes - warnes id co said...

SIMPLE. Although Paperchase mishandled their response - the blame rests totally with the illustrator who clearly lifted the Eloise image. Also, as there is no-way the design agency could have vetted the image I don't believe they can be blamed.

Martin Warnes Warnes Id Co - Brands with Identity

martin warnes - warnes id co, 16/02/2010 12:18
www.warnesidco.co.uk
Nigel Morgan said...

Thanks for that comment Martin, however the artist had been trying to resolve this with Paperchase to no avail, once they became aware of the potential plagiarism they should have taken steps to deal with it.

The plagiarised designs remain on sale even though the artist who supplied them to the agency, who supplied them to Paperchase, has admitted copying them from Hidden Eloise.

Sadly Paperchase appear far more culpable than merely botching the PR response, which is appearing increasing like their attitude.

Nigel Morgan, 16/02/2010 12:41
Emily Cagle said...

"ignorance will not mean bliss when you find yourself criticised on social media."

I think that says it all! I often speak to business owners who would rather not have a social media presence because of all the real and imagined risks it poses - a fear of course fuelled by horror stories such as this one - but your post clearly demonstrates that no company can protect their reputation simply by not showing up to the party.

With regards to Paperchase, I agree with your assessment, over all. The alleged plagiarism could have been, and probably was, accidental on their part, but the real mistake they have made is in the handling of the crisis, and it will be interesting to see what they do next.

Emily Cagle, 23/02/2010 21:54
www.emilycagle.co.uk
www.emilycagle.co.uk/blog
www.twitter.com/emilycagle
www.linkedin.com/in/emilycagle

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Website

Blog

Twitter

LinkedIn

Submit Comment