"1984" video creater exposed and FIRED, employee of tech firm on contract with Obama campaign

http://www.kxma.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=106622

Our Statement On The 1984 Video


Statement from Thomas Gensemer, Managing Director, Blue State Digital

This afternoon, an employee at our firm, Phillip de Vellis, received a call from Arianna Huffington of “The Huffington Post” regarding the “1984” video currently circulating online. Initially, de Vellis refused to respond to her requests. He has since acknowledged to Blue State Digital that he was the creator of the video.

Pursuant to company policy regarding outside political work or commentary on behalf of our clients or otherwise, Mr. de Vellis has been terminated from Blue State Digital effective immediately.

Blue State Digital is under contract with the Obama Campaign for technology pursuits including software development and hosting. Additionally, one of our founding partners is on leave from the company to work directly for the campaign at headquarters.

However, Blue State Digital is not currently engaged in any relationship with the Obama Campaign for creative or non-technical services.

Mr. de Vellis created this video on his own time. It was done without the knowledge of management, and was in no way tied to his work at the firm or our formal engagement with the Obama campaign.

I have spoken with David Plouffe, Sen. Obama’s campaign manager, to inform him of this action and am appreciative of his understanding and ongoing support of our work.

We wish Mr. de Vellis well in his future endeavors.

well, that's one way to tank your career.

"Mr. de Vellis created this video on his own time. It was done without the knowledge of management, and was in no way tied to his work at the firm or our formal engagement with the Obama campaign."

Pursuant to company policy regarding outside political work or commentary on behalf of our clients or otherwise, Mr. de Vellis has been terminated from Blue State Digital effective immediately.

He has no recourse if he was an at will employee.

Probably in their handbook or possibly contract.

Given that Obama himself claims that no one he hired or has working for him for free that he knows of or has any control over, did this. (The current story in the original post would support Obama's claims in this.)

It's not "work on the side for a client". It's doing work on behalf of a client against the client's will and without the client's knowledge. I don't think that's considered good business.

Including the Obama logo.

Well, if that's the case, that's the case....

Where did you read that in the first 9 replies?

"including the Obama logo".

It's strongly suggesting this is purely a matter of an employee competing with the company for paid work from the client.

Obama, as a client of the company, did not order or request this commercial. This employee, on his own time, made a commercial and released it. The use of Obama didn't give permission for the use of his logo in this commercial.

This guy could have worked in his off time, but using his work computer and assets, making this commercial, that's what post 10 was suggesting.

First, the poster said it, "sounds like". That "sounds like" conjecture, not absolutely convinced.

I think the poster was noting that the creator of the ad had access to the files stored on his employers computer.

The company statement clearly says it was done off the clock so any money that came in from Obama did not pay this guy for his after-hours work.

No one said it was paid for by Obama's campaign. No one.

Now, I'm gonna get ugly, so forgive me, but it has to be said.

Putting words in someone's mouth and inferring something that clearly isn't there is totally Coulter/Hannity/Limbaugh. It simply shuts down meaningful discussion and turns the dialogue into having someone defend something THEY DIDN'T EVEN SAY.

Please consider that.

and if I say nothing I'm letting that hang in the air like it should be taken to mean something that perhaps wasn't meant, but certainly seems to have been said, and from that much grief can gush forth.

Perhaps I went too far. If so, I apologize.

The whole way we relate to information has been altered by the Bushistas and having to figure out what they really mean.

I didn't mean to be preachy. :)

I just wonder how others beyond DU will report on the issue and if they'll say it's "for Obama" or "from Obama" or what, because this has become a tempest in a teapot.

I didn't even bat an eyebrow at the ad, myself.

except, of course, here on DU where it will live forever like all the minutia of politics does.

Other than that, the ad is meaningless.

it will be forgotten everywhere...except DU. :)

that de Vellis has now exposed Blue State Digital to a copyright infringment lawsuit from Apple for unauthorized use and distribution of its video. Did Apple give him their consent to use and distribute their video? He could do whatever he wanted as long as it stayed on his home computer. He made the mistake by letting his ego take control and uploading it.

Their employer wouldn't be held to task. It is strictly the liability of the person who did it.

the company owned the equipment, not de Vellis.

Here's my post from another thread when the video first came out:

27. Not tacky--a master stroke
The reason the ad is brilliant is because it slips right into a previously defined concept in the American consciousness: the usurper to the title. What this ad did in its original form is cast Apple as the Microsoft-antithesis. This ad casts Hillary as Microsoft.

Anyone who knows persuasion will tell you that familiarity is key. It costs vast amounts of money to persuade but if one can do something clever like this--in essence, piggybacking on an American classic in advertising--then one has leaped over those millions of dollars required to do the job.

When I say "do the job," I mean position Hillary as the establishment. An ad like this effectively shortcuts a campaign required to position her. It starts virally on the 'Net and will, if Obama's campaign people are savvy, continue in other ways--through the message of his speeches, advertising, etc.

Somebody who is very, very sophisticated in advertising did this. My guess is it's someone of the boomer generation. I don't think it's Obama's staff (maybe someone doing it on his/her off hours) but it's clearly someone who understands the big picture of marketing strategy. It's a master stroke.

On a related note, I noticed something interesting from Obama's campaign this last week. The trouble is that I can't remember exactly what it was. I was surfing advertising sites for a graduate course in advertising that I am teaching this summer. I found a blurb or an ad of some sort for his campaign in one of the advertising trade spots. All I can remember is that it was unusual and interesting and I recall thinking that Obama must have some clever people on his marketing team.

Also, recall that there was a thread here about Obama's logo when it first came out. The thread remarked on how different it was from the usual red-white-blue standard fare in a campaign logo, but my point is that Obama's marketing is accomplishing much in its early stages.

End of post
Thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x452805#453034

But others kept insisting it was an amateur "netroots" job.


10. Brilliant Concept, Very Simplistic, Very Misleading

The ad shows an individualist (meant, of course to represent Republicans) smashing old socialist Hillary, who wants us all to be uniform for our own good. This is, at its core, the traditional Conservative Republican argument against Dems and Liberals.

For most of us Dems who would not look forward to a President Hillary Clinton, although we understand the concern expressed, it's because of her ties to the economic elites we loathe.

We know the uniformity that is wanted from us is not for our good, but for business interests' good.

The misleading factor is that Republicans also want us to sit in a row for Wall Street's sake.

On edit: Oh my, I hadn't even seen this was an Obama ad. I guess he's looking for the conservative vote.


PS - IMO, ParkRidge47 is either a professional political strategist, works for one, or someone who is obsessed with Hillary and not much else. The account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of posting this video. He/she has watched no more than 8 YouTube videos, ever? Fishy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=455668&mesg_id=455846

Sadly, now that he's been "outed," it makes him vulnerable to a copyright suit from Apple.

:eyes:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116645724148144035

#3, it looks like.

"Some Notes on Primary Season

1) Your favorite candidate is the only one who can win.

2) Your favorite candidate is the only one who will truly get behind a progressive agenda.

3) Other candidates are part of some nefarious conspiracy to destroy your candidate.

4) Supporters of other candidates are motivated by groupthink.

5) Supporters of other candidates are operating in bad faith and arguing dishonestly."

Too clever to be Republican.

I didn't like the ad, but I recognize it was clever.

"You're terminated"

"No, I'm not terminated, I quit."

those tag lines required in ads?
"I'm Obama and I approve this ad".
There is no tag line.

I think the guy got what he deserved.

When he identified the ad advocating obama's campaign, and he is employed by a company paid to advocate on behald of obama's campaign, his employer has every right to expect him not to release ads 'on his own time' which advocate for or against the 'product' (person)without permission or consultation with them first.

Imagine, an employer of an advertising firm hired by Coke, releasing ads into the wild 'on his free time' with the slogan "Pepsi causes heart attacks" (for example).