Tasmanian Devil (23 page)

A number of other factors lay behind the success. He appealled equally to children, teenagers and adults, and on some networks
Taz of Taz-Mania!
moved into adult time slots. He rode the crest of a new merchandising wave through catalogue shopping and the proliferation of Warner Bros. Studio Stores across the United States and into Europe and Asia. He ranked high in ‘pop iconography . . . the rise of animation fandom'.
²

Real Tasmanians were bound to take notice and 1997 marked the beginning of an interesting relationship between the entertainment giant and the Tasmanian state government. A front-page report in the
Sunday Tasmanian
newspaper, headlined ‘We Lose Millions as Yanks Grab Devil', initiated proceedings:

A multinational company makes millions of dollars out of the Tasmanian Devil—and Tassie does not get a cent. US company Warner Bros. owns the Tasmanian Devil. The international entertainment giant rakes in a fortune from its world-famous cartoon character Taz. The Devil ranks with Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner in the top three most popular characters worldwide—and its sales are increasing dramatically . . .

    Warner Bros. International public relations consumer products director Annie Morita said the Tasmanian Devil was one of the rising stars of its merchandising. ‘I don't know if I could even attach a number,' she said. ‘You'd have to think about everything from home videos, to music to television to studio stores to licensing. He's up there with all of that. You're talking millions if not billions.' She also noted that Taz was even bigger than Bugs in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Venezuela because ‘they feel he represents the machismo of the region.'
³

She was not exaggerating. A 1995 Warner Bros. survey had shown that about 95 per cent of US residents recognised Taz. Adult men liked his ‘aggressive behaviour', teenagers ‘identified with his rebellious streak', and children liked his generally wild manner.
⁴

The report also noted a push to link Taz to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, as part of a campaign to promote Tasmania internationally. It would require a joint venture between the

Commonwealth government, Tourism Tasmania and Warner Bros., with Taz hosting a virtual tour of the island's tourist draw-cards such as its wilderness areas, wineries and Mount Wellington. For the backers of the concept, the cartoon devil ‘attracted the sort of international attention money could not buy. Tasmania should cash in on Warner Bros.' investment'.
⁵

Many Tasmanians knew of the cartoon character. Few, however, had any notion that their iconic marsupial could somehow be ‘owned'. The report enlightened them:

Warner Bros. has trademarked the character and registered the name Tasmanian Devil. The patent covers everything from sports gear, dolls, video games and Christmas decorations to underwear. And it is policed. Warner Bros.' Australian legal arm is tracking the source of illicit Tasmanian Devil dolls sold at the Royal Adelaide Show with a view to prosecution. One Tasmanian company, under threat of legal action, battled the international giant for eight years after being told not to use Tasmanian Devil as a brand name. Warner Bros. eventually gave the Tassie firm, Wigston's Lures, a one-off agreement allowing it to call a fishing lure a Tasmanian Devil.‘We're the only people other than Warner Bros. to have that registration and we fought tooth and nail to get the darn thing,' Stuart Wigston said. ‘It's hard to believe something indigenous to Tasmania is registered by a huge, great, multinational company. It's unreal . . .'
⁶

The name ‘Tasmanian Devil' is
copyrighted to Warner Bros.
Wigston's Lures, a small Hobart
fishing lure company, spent eight
years battling for the right to use
the name Tasmanian Devil for
one of its lures. Wigston's
Tasmanian Devil
is a 13.5
gram ‘Beetle Bomb'.
(Courtesy Garth Wigston)

The report went further, roping in Tasmania's internationally successful catamaran-building company Incat, which owner Bob Clifford had developed using unique aluminium wave-piercing hulls. It noted that:

Incat Tasmania steered clear of calling its new vessel the Tasmanian Devil—opting for ‘91-metre Devil'. A disclaimer circulated at the catamaran's launch . . . stated: ‘No challenge to Warner Bros.' ownership is intended or implied[:] the devil livery on the 91-metre vessel bears no resemblance to the cartoon character.'
⁷

Warner Bros. was asked to respond to the newspaper report.

Its Australian lawyer stated that the company pursued offenders:

We've got a duty to go out there and police the marketplace so people don't abuse the system . . . If someone was to use Tasmanian Devil as a trademark we would regard that as an infringement of our registration but it really depends on [the] circumstances in which they used it. If someone was talking about the Tasmanian devil in Tasmania, that's a different situation . . . The trademark is not designed to stop the public from using the expression or to stop someone calling a Tasmanian devil a Tasmanian devil. It's more or less a brand name for goods.
⁸

Needless to say the report created political waves. Tasmania's then Tourism Minister, Ray Groom, protested:

It seems so unfair [Groom told the
Sunday Tasmanian
]. Here we are, a small island below Australia with half a million people. We've got the devil as a native animal which doesn't exist anywhere else and a big American international company has pinched our rights . . . Warner Bros. are pretty tough operators, they know how to get their copyrights and their trademarks registered around the world where it counts. They endeavour to tie it all up . . . It could finish up in the courts and we'll be looking at that issue as well, to see what we can do to retrieve the rights to use our devil as we want to.
⁹

Groom did concede that amicable negotiations were preferred, and to that end a Tasmanian delegation drew up preparations to visit Warner Bros. in Los Angeles for discussions.

Letter-writers to the newspaper didn't hold back. From Marcus Rowell, Hobart:

I have recently returned from a trip to South America where I was astonished to find that almost everybody knew the Warner Bros. Tasmanian Devil . . . certainly this character Taz is an identity that is internationally known who should be leading Tasmania's international marketing effort. Although we do need to make sure potential visitors know that he is fictitious as some South Americans expressed great concern that we have such a fierce creature in our wilderness.

From Craig Wellington, Hobart:

It seems to me Warner Bros. took the initiative long before anyone in Tasmania did and made the Tasmanian devil a household name around the world. They have obviously invested vast amounts in their characterisation of the Tasmanian devil and it is understandable that they wish to protect that investment by policing the use of their trademark character. It also seems to me their investment has given the devil a massive international profile. Tasmania should be grateful for such a gift. I know it's a cliché in the tourism industry to say ‘Look what Crocodile Dundee did for the Northern Territory' but the Tasmanian devil provides us a similar, if not better, opportunity . . . have the Tasmanian devil declared a state emblem (rather than its extinct cousin) . . .

From John Williams, Glebe, Hobart:

The attitude of Tasmanian politicians that it is all right to rip-off Warner Bros.' trademarked figure, whatever their reasoning, is deplorable. It reinforces the low opinion which the public has of politicians' ethical standards. The reputation of the whole State must also suffer when prospective investors learn that we have such slippery standards in commercial dealings. And anyone who is trying to raise children with a respect for other people's property will be horrified at the example the politicians are setting. Warner Bros. have abided by the system our politicians have set up. I don't know if lawmakers are as careless in other countries. Would, for instance, an Australian company be able to register ‘American bald eagle' in the United States of America?

From Barry Giles, Cambridge, Tasmania:

I recently returned to Tasmania . . . When we arrived in the US about five years ago there was already a vast amount of merchandise in the shops bearing the Tassie devil image . . . most Americans do not realise the animal or the island exist. Actually this is not surprising considering the results of surveys showing their appalling lack of knowledge about the geography of their own continent. You can hardly expect them to know about a distant ‘fantasy' island on the other side of the planet. It's a standing joke that Tas . . . Taz . . . is in Africa.
¹⁰

Lively political debate in the Tasmanian parliament followed the government delegation visit to Warner Bros. Groom was pressured to announce a good outcome:

Mr Polley:
Can the minister inform the House of the outcome of the negotiations with Warner Bros. and when can we expect to see the internationally-recognised and popular cartoon character being used to promote Tasmania throughout the world?

Mr Groom:
Constructive discussions took place and extremely interesting ideas were discussed. I might say contrary to some of the earlier indications the people from Warner Bros. were keen to embrace Tasmania . . . I will not go into the details at the moment because it will be a bit later on when we will discuss this in further detail and make some announcements, one would hope. But they are keen on the environmental aspects of Tasmania—how we can link Taz the Tazzie Devil into promoting internationally environmental issues focusing in part on Tasmania. The indications are this is not going to cost us the millions of dollars we thought . . . I have, Mr Speaker, so many Tazzie Devils coming out of my fax machine—not actual devils but different designs of devils from all sorts of people around Tasmania . . . Some very exciting ideas based upon our wonderful native animal, the Tasmanian devil, others not looking so happy, probably not the sort of thing we would want to use . . . We are looking at these, Mr Speaker, to see how we can use the Tasmanian Devil. It has a lot going for it . . . We are very pleased with the attitude shown by Warner Bros. They appreciate that we have produced this animal—they have used the animal for their own commercial benefits and my argument is that we should gain the benefit, we should be able to use this cartoon character based on our own animal widely around the world to promote Tasmania.
¹¹

Seven months later Groom announced that a verbal deal had been struck, in which the Tasmanian government would pay Warner Bros. an annual fee to use the Taz image for marketing purposes. Speculation on the cost ranged from a low of A$50 000 to a high of ten times that amount, with all sorts of possibilities enthusiastically rumoured: Taz would feature in the opening ceremony of the Sydney 2000 Olympics; he would appear on Tasmanian tourist brochures in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia; and a human in a Taz suit would become a feature of major world events such as the Berlin International Travel Show and the Melbourne Grand Prix.

In the 1990s the Tasmanian government lobbied Warner Bros. to allow use of the Taz
image to promote Tasmania internationally. Warner Bros. declined. (Taz courtesy of
Warner Bros. Taz, Tasmanian Devil and all related characters and elements are
trademarks of and
© Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.)

Groom enthused particularly about the Games, declaring Taz to be integral to a Tasmanian push so significant that ‘it's developing bigger than Ben Hur', though he did concede that ‘whether we can get him on the main arena in the opening ceremony is a tough one'—suggesting a battle with the Games organisers—and furthermore, that the battle with Warner Bros. wasn't quite over either: ‘No contracts are signed yet but we have understandings'.
¹²
Whatever those understandings were, they dissolved, and the Games duly went ahead without Taz. But the issue was about more than the mere commercial opportunism represented by the cartoon figure, because its real counterpart represented an idealised opposite: a rare and elusive creature inhabiting an unspoilt wilderness.