More to it than just hiring a crane!
In part 1 of this series we find out what the legal experts have to say about Nando’s Mango ‘borrowing’ Stunt.
Following on from the much publicised ‘borrowing’ of The Big Mango from its home in Bowen, Queensland, we spoke with Corinne Attard, Partner at Holman Webb, about the legal implications of the ‘heist’ and what would have gone on ‘behind the scenes’ to pull it off.
First of all, as Attard explains “it is not ‘theft’ if the tourist office allowed them to remove the mango”. However, for any aspiring guerrilla marketer, Attard cautions that it not as simple as getting the owner’s permission. “They should consider... whether any approvals from the local council are needed to remove or to reinstate the object or even whether it it is heritage listed. (They) should make sure that the local police are aware of (the) plans... wasting police resources or making false accusations is not viewed favourably and might not be the publicity (they) were seeking”.
Important too, is insurance and having agreement on who is responsible for any potential costs or risks. “(You’d) want to make sure that insurance was all in order and it is all agreed who is going to pay in case something happened during the removal or afterwards including the possible damage to the object or even an injury to someone”.
Finally, it would be a shame to see all that work go to waste on account of loose lips, so Attard advises legal non-disclosure agreements “so that the contractors that (they) use and anyone else (involved) would need to be bound” to not let the cat out of the bag- or perhaps the mango out of the stand!
Stay tuned for part 2 when we get the opinion of some leading marketing minds about the ROI.
Do you know more about this story? Contact us anonymously through this link.