Wedding photographer Sal Cincotta voiced his opinion on Facebook today about Miller Lab's launching a new line of albums using the word "Signature" in the title. Apparently Cincotta has a wedding album line that goes by a similar name, Signature Collection Albums, and he feels that there will now be "confusion in the market place." Read below what Cincotta posted on his Facebook page and voice your own opinion in the comments. Do you think Miller's was out to copy Cincotta or is "Signature" a generic enough word anyone should be able to use it.
Since his post on Facebook Cincotta has garnered a lot of support from his followers. However some have voiced some interesting points as well. Jay Gough mentioned in one comment that a quick search on Google highlighted at least 8 other companies on the front page that also use the word signature in their album marketing.
Here is the post Cincotta made on his Facebook page today....
Questionable behavior by Miller’s Lab or good business?
"Need your help. Questionable behavior by Miller’s Lab or good business? As many of you know, about a year and a half ago we started a company called Signature Collection Albums – scalbums.com – the goal was to provide a higher level of albums for our wedding clients and photographers wanting to separate themselves from the pack with high quality books. Imagine my surprise when I picked up a recent issue of Professional Photographer and Rangefinder and they chose to run ads (6 pages mind you) featuring Miller’s “new” album line called “Signature Albums”.
"Now, you tell me. Much ado about nothing? Or should I be concerned? My concern is it creates confusion in the market place. For anyone who knows our brand, it implies that we are possibly endorsing this product, which is obviously not the case. Every time I get up and speak about these albums will there be confusion as to what I am referring to? And worst of all, it wreaks of a multi-million dollar company stealing an idea/concept with little to no regard for the smaller company because, quite frankly, a law suit would cost us near 6-figures to defend! "
"Is it possible that the marketing team over at Miller’s was unaware of our branding? Possibly. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and go to google shall we? Google “Signature Albums”. Weird. Signature Collection Albums, our company, comes back #1. Maybe they missed that. Is it possible that they were unaware of our advertising? I guess the fact that we advertise in print magazines like Rangefinder or even Shutter Magazine could have been missed. Maybe they missed the fact that we advertise or have booths at the WPPI and Imaging USA tradeshows. Or missed that we speak on shows like Creative Live to an audience of 30-50k people? "
"I guess it’s possible they just missed all these things and I am just making something out of nothing. Or, is the obvious answer smacking me in the face? So, we reached out to Miller’s Lab, hoping they would see the mistake, acknowledge it, and address it immediately. Surprise. Ding ding ding. The obvious answer wins. Miller’s sees nothing wrong and will continue this campaign until we force them via legal action to stop. WOW. Can you imagine if in your local market, after spending tens of thousands marketing and branding your business – lets call it “happy moments wedding photography”, someone came up with a similar product or service, took your business name, minus one word, and started a monster ad campaign offering “happy moments photography” by bill in your local market? This would and could be devastating to your brand! It would create mass confusion with your client base."
"So, I ask you. Much ado about nothing? Or bad business by Miller’s Lab? Come on Miller’s – be the unique and innovative company you position yourself to be. Unless your marketing team has been living under a rock for the past year and a half, there is no way they missed it. Not caring is not good a business practice. Am I off base being concerned about this? Tell me your thoughts?"
Is the word signature generic enough that everyone should be able to use it or does Cincotta make a valid point?
![[Updated] 'Photographer from Hell' Sued After Wedding Photography Catastrophe](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/lead/2016/04/wedding-photographer-from-hell.jpg)
I think the word "signature" is far too generic for Cincotta to be getting as upset as he is. What about all the companies BEFORE him that have used the term "signature" to describe THEIR signature product. We could argue that he copied THEM. He is not the first person to use the word signature. This reminds me of a few years ago when Paris Hilton wanted to trademark the phrase "That's Hot." This is similarly ridiculous.
Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the Salvatore Cincotta type treatment (upright script font) to, say the type treatment for Salvatore Ferragamo (clothing designer)... they are very similar. If Cincotta has a case against Miller's, then maybe Mr. Ferragamo should consider hiring an attorney - after all, both are named Salvatore... and both are using a script font for their name's type treatment. This could cause confusion in the marketplace.
Sal seems like a very nice guy from what I saw on Creative Live, but I have a feeling he is handling all of his own marketing - I doubt he has hired a marketing firm. If he had, they would be guiding him on this and managing his expectations. I'm questioning all the money he says he has spent on his "marketing"...
starry, youre like captain obvious. the fonts are completely different. the common theme - both have the name salvatore. so unless you are suggesting that sal's real name is not salvatore - not sure you are adding any value here. it seems most people are speaking from a point of darkness and missing the bigger picture. if you read sal's post (which i did) he is not debating the word "signature" its almost comical to read the trolls comments who now appear to be lawyers. enlighten yourself people. this issue effects us all. in fact, he posted it for open debate - asking if it was bad business or nothing to worry about. a select few have propagated the debate out of context and with inaccurate facts.
Well, Sal should have done his OWN Google search to find those merchants who were already using the word "signature".
Sal's guilty of the same thing he's accusing Miller's of. So to use his own argument, he should quit using "signature" immediately.
Know that your complaint won't hold up in court? No problem, just whine about it public and claim that its too expensive to hire the lawyers.
sorry Sal--love ya...but signature is very generic. As a matter of fact we have both a signature collection and a signature album. lol
I agree 100% and two different brands and markets! also Milllers has been around for so long.... and dont think it was done intentionally or one purpose, I think Sal has nothing to worry about, there is no confusion for the end user which is us photographers.
For a company as large as Millers, I wouldn't think it would be out of the question that they could have started R&D/Sourcing/Acquiring product stock/etc for their new line more than a year-and-a-half ago. For something as intricate as an album is to manufacture -and in the quantity they will no doubt be producing- it doesn't get done in a couple week's time.
I wouldn't think they saw Sal's ad in Rangefinder and then said, "Hey, let's release a new line of albums next week and call 'em the same thing as that other guy (that a very select few have ever heard of) called his!"
I saw him on CL and was underwhelmed. Seems likes a car salesman. A very high end car salesman mind you, but one none the less. It was all about buying his "system" which you had better not dare to alter. It all sounded so cheesy it was almost comical. he kept INSISTING that the people must outsource all their edits to a particular company he was plugging. NO mention he owned the company. They needed to buy albums from him, Buy everything from him. If he mentioned a product chances are very high he owned part of the biz. I am sure this is just another marketing ploy. At least the guy was honest about the fact that he cares much more about selling than photography itself.
We're all salesmen, and reliable processes put billions in the bank. A few of us are so good clients beat a path to our door. The rest of us better be sales and marketing experts or we'll go out of business.
Sal Cincotta (or is is just SAL now? kind of like "Oprah", or "Prince" or "Tiger") really pulled a fast one on those big labs anway. I've seen him sponsored by many labs over the years and then he creates his own line of products and offering the same things they offer? WTF Sal? One day you are promoting their products, then you create your "Signature Line"? They pretty much paid for you to build your audience, become a so called "Rock Star" photographer, and then you start your own companies to compete with them. Talk about Balls! Is this guy a photographer or just another photographer who realized that selling things to all of the sheep photogs out there is MUCH more lucrative then actually running a successful photo studio. I"m sure the Sal brand will go down in flames soon once he realizes that running a business actually takes a lot of work. Oh well....he'll probably go on Creative Live again and pretend to be an awesome photographer to gather more sheep.
I'm sure Sal works his tail off to build the value of his brand. This time though, he's just wrong.
If Sal wanted to own the brand he should have put his own name on it. You can't copyright or trademark word like Signature. Is it confusing for Miller to use the same word? Of course it is, it's supposed to be, and Sal comes across like a spoiled brat by expecting a competitor to take a word out of their vocabulary just because he wants to use it. Miller used Sal, and every other spokesman they ever hired and paid, to build their business. Miller has increased the value of Sal's name by using it in their marketing, and Sal can certainly continue to build on it, but come on, he wants to start a public spat over use of the word signature? Give me a break.
I can understand the frustration BUUUT
1. If you type in "signature albums" in quotations (this searches the entire phrase as a unit) into google you get 12,600 search results. Most of which are photographers... although some of them aren't necessarily selling albums like Cincotta or Miller labs, clearly the phrase signature albums has been used by photographers for a LONG TIME.
2. The link below explains trademarking. Basically, if Cincotta ALREADY had a trademark approved he could technically do something legal about it if it might cause confusion. But he would have to PROVE that this is the case.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/02/can_yo...
3. Cincottas trademark is "Signature Album Collection"... Millers product is entitled "Miller's Signature Albums" and if there wasn't a claim to trademark the word album or signature or collection then I am not too sure that this would hold entirely.
4. There was another company BEFORE Sal Cincotta that went to trademark the phrase "signature albums" but they abandoned the trademark... so CLEARLY it's not like Sal developed an innovative idea.NOT TO MENTION HOW MANY COMPANIES ALREADY HAVE TRADEMARKED PHRASES WITH SIGNATURE COLLECTION ALREADY IN THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5. He clearly didn't follow through because I looked up the pending trademark and is was abandoned?
6. Sal has made a habit of publicly name dropping people or businesses that he finds have "done wrong" remember the whole controversy about photographers stealing work? He could have just written an article about stealing in general... but he decided to specifically name people, which I feel is kind of odd. Why surround yourself with negative controversy? Not to mention, in my opinion, how pretentious he is.