In the public relations & marketing industries, viral video campaigns are very rarely executed properly. Done right, these videos necessarily break all the rules of marketing: overt branding is a no-no; a call-to-action is a no-no; content with even the faintest hint of a sales pitch is a no-no. But breaking the rules can be scary, so most companies don’t.
The goal of viral video marketing is to pique curiosity and expand brand awareness – organically. The best viral video campaigns drive viewers to act without having to lure them in with puppies, cleavage & stacks, or request that they “come on down for the best discounts around.”
Take this Bike Hero video, for example. This emerged in November 2008 and has since generated over 2,500,000 hits on YouTube alone. Though initially indistinguishable from any other user-generated content, viewers soon came to learn that Guitar Hero actually had a hand in the production of the short. Sure, some scoffed. But most people agreed: it may be a commercial, but it’s still pretty cool.
The beauty of this video was that it (a) wove Guitar Hero into the fabric of our everyday lives (b) without a hard sales pitch or call-to-action. Had there been a sales pitch involved, this video would have backfired right off the bat, or at least immediately once viewers learned its true source.
But that didn’t happen. Well played.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
death of a salesman, birth of a friend.
It comes as no surprise that ad professionals are ranked as one of the least trustworthy professions. In fact, we’re ranked just below used car salesmen. Maybe this suits us well – the majority of the time the messages communicated through the mass media are driven by the client rather than by common sense. We are hired to convince specific target audiences that they need – no, that they can’t live without – rubber bands shaped like seahorses, or lotion that will leave your skin as tanned as Snooki’s.
Most of these messages are dismissed as soon as they are perceived. But it wasn’t always that way.
There was a time and a place where advertising was king. There was also a time and a place where Michael Jackson was king. That time has passed.
Today, we – consumers – are exposed to advertising in porta-potties, in elevators, in subway tunnels. Messages are flown across the sky, embedded in video games, and smeared across almost every surface in your local bar…including you. Technology exists that can project a high definition advertisement onto your side-view mirror while you’re cruising down I-95. A million messages are seen, and only a select few survive.
I, for one, do not want to be told what I need, what I like, what to buy, wear, see, do and think. No one does. And yet companies continue to hire advertisers to peddle messages that go unheard.
Contrary to popular belief, ad professionals do have their fingers on the pulse of what drives consumers to buy, and it’s not advertising. At least not alone. Today, consumers need to have control. They want to develop relationships with brands that reflect their unique personalities, and they want to do it on their own terms. Consumers don’t see an ad and run off to purchase anymore – they peruse Facebook, Twitter and Yelp!, and depending on what they see and hear, they run off to purchase. And don’t think that advertising in its traditional form will hold water in social media channels. It won’t. Anything perceived as advertising will be immediately dismissed as just that – advertising.
I don’t mean to challenge the very foundation of the ad industry. And I don’t mean to say that advertising is dead. There is still a place for it, but it’s a smaller place given the new way that consumers collect information and make decisions.
Ad professionals know how to manipulate the delicate balance between advertising and social media in a way that generates results. But when a client wants advertising and advertising alone, well, okay.
Most of these messages are dismissed as soon as they are perceived. But it wasn’t always that way.
There was a time and a place where advertising was king. There was also a time and a place where Michael Jackson was king. That time has passed.
Today, we – consumers – are exposed to advertising in porta-potties, in elevators, in subway tunnels. Messages are flown across the sky, embedded in video games, and smeared across almost every surface in your local bar…including you. Technology exists that can project a high definition advertisement onto your side-view mirror while you’re cruising down I-95. A million messages are seen, and only a select few survive.
I, for one, do not want to be told what I need, what I like, what to buy, wear, see, do and think. No one does. And yet companies continue to hire advertisers to peddle messages that go unheard.
Contrary to popular belief, ad professionals do have their fingers on the pulse of what drives consumers to buy, and it’s not advertising. At least not alone. Today, consumers need to have control. They want to develop relationships with brands that reflect their unique personalities, and they want to do it on their own terms. Consumers don’t see an ad and run off to purchase anymore – they peruse Facebook, Twitter and Yelp!, and depending on what they see and hear, they run off to purchase. And don’t think that advertising in its traditional form will hold water in social media channels. It won’t. Anything perceived as advertising will be immediately dismissed as just that – advertising.
I don’t mean to challenge the very foundation of the ad industry. And I don’t mean to say that advertising is dead. There is still a place for it, but it’s a smaller place given the new way that consumers collect information and make decisions.
Ad professionals know how to manipulate the delicate balance between advertising and social media in a way that generates results. But when a client wants advertising and advertising alone, well, okay.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
there is no right or wrong in corporate america. there just is.
When it comes to corporate social responsibility, American companies know first-hand that any remotely controversial decision they make will come under rapid fire. And no company is more familiar with this than Nike.
In the mid-90s, Nike was largely the focus of human rights and labor condition issues. And rightly so. Child labor and employee abuse are serious allegations, and while Nike may not have owned the factories where these conditions were reported, they are responsible for ensuring a safe and fair environment for the 20+% of the factory employees who were involved in manufacturing Nike products.
When these issues surfaced in America there were protests. There were boycotts. There was bad publicity a-plenty, and when business was impacted enough for shareholders to take note, Nike took responsibility and employed new techniques to prevent – at least as much as possible – worker abuse and child labor in overseas factories. The company also, albeit reluctantly, divulged the locations of their overseas factories and allowed the formation of garment worker unions.
Now, Nike has done it again. Actually, let me rephrase. Nike didn’t do it again. Nike didn’t close the Hugger and Vision Tex factories in Honduras. These factories closed unexpectedly in January 2009, leaving 1,800 Hondurans unemployed. These factories also failed to pay more than $2 million in severance to their employees.
In the end, protests and boycotts on more than 40 college campuses across the country forced Nike to pay $1.5 million into a relief fund for the Honduran workers. Of its own volition, Nike will also work with Honduran suppliers to offer vocational training programs while prioritizing the re-hiring of Hugger and Vision Tex employee as new positions become available.
And this is the price Nike will pay to reinstate licensing deals with Cornell University and the University of Wisconsin. This is the price that Nike will pay to restore its public image. The $1.5 million going into the relief fund is far less than what Nike would lose from boycotts and lost licensing deals with universities. It is far less than what it would lose in sales due to a (re-)tarnished reputation.
But is it right?
It doesn’t matter. This is the price that American corporations must pay. Nike is not the first company to make right something that they didn’t make wrong – and they won’t be the last.
In the mid-90s, Nike was largely the focus of human rights and labor condition issues. And rightly so. Child labor and employee abuse are serious allegations, and while Nike may not have owned the factories where these conditions were reported, they are responsible for ensuring a safe and fair environment for the 20+% of the factory employees who were involved in manufacturing Nike products.
When these issues surfaced in America there were protests. There were boycotts. There was bad publicity a-plenty, and when business was impacted enough for shareholders to take note, Nike took responsibility and employed new techniques to prevent – at least as much as possible – worker abuse and child labor in overseas factories. The company also, albeit reluctantly, divulged the locations of their overseas factories and allowed the formation of garment worker unions.
Now, Nike has done it again. Actually, let me rephrase. Nike didn’t do it again. Nike didn’t close the Hugger and Vision Tex factories in Honduras. These factories closed unexpectedly in January 2009, leaving 1,800 Hondurans unemployed. These factories also failed to pay more than $2 million in severance to their employees.
In the end, protests and boycotts on more than 40 college campuses across the country forced Nike to pay $1.5 million into a relief fund for the Honduran workers. Of its own volition, Nike will also work with Honduran suppliers to offer vocational training programs while prioritizing the re-hiring of Hugger and Vision Tex employee as new positions become available.
And this is the price Nike will pay to reinstate licensing deals with Cornell University and the University of Wisconsin. This is the price that Nike will pay to restore its public image. The $1.5 million going into the relief fund is far less than what Nike would lose from boycotts and lost licensing deals with universities. It is far less than what it would lose in sales due to a (re-)tarnished reputation.
But is it right?
It doesn’t matter. This is the price that American corporations must pay. Nike is not the first company to make right something that they didn’t make wrong – and they won’t be the last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)