Close to the bone
'Viral does have a downside: the potential to damage brands. In trying to develop ads with sufficient shock value to capture attention, agencies may stray too far over the line of acceptability'.He goes onto to explain about the Ford Ka adverts.
'For example, an ad for Ford SportKa portrayed a cat being decapitated by the car's sunroof, with the tagline "Ford SportKa: The Ka's evil twin." Ford denied authorizing the release of the ad and claimed to have rejected the concept. A partner ad, which featured a pigeon getting whacked by the Ka's hood, did make it on air in the U.K. but was pulled because of viewer complaints. Without doubt, these two ads differentiated the SportKa from the Ka, which was perceived as a mundane little runabout. But many potential buyers, even those not in the market for a SportKa, may have taken exception to the ads and been put off the idea of buying a Ford'.
Ok, the ads maybe humorous or whatever, but did the advert actually increase the sales of the Sports Ka? yeah it got people talking, and reached millions, but did it help Ford?, or did it ruin the brand for many others. I suppose as it was so cheap to produce, they are not to worried about their bank balance, but did it potential wipe away potential buyers after the ad was released? and be to close to the bone for some.
The wrong crowd
Also with a viral ad going to so many different people all over the world, a brand may start to attract the wrong crowd, and communicate to the wrong people. They may not even want to be associated your brand. Ok, this is not the end of the world, because you rely on the millions of other people it reaches. Its very much like bait, some fish bite it, and others swim away.
Brand Dilution
Another key point is 'Brand dilution' viral marketing depends solely upon the public, not the people involved in your brand to do the "selling" for you. The brand lets go, and they decided to let us make it a success or not. Thats why if its not done properly, like the examples you seen, then more than likely it won't be passed on. Dissolving, instead on evolving.
Forcing Sales
I think the success of the 'good' viral ads i have shown in this blog, all demonstrate one thing. The brand comes second. As i mentioned before, the transition from push to pull marketing is evident with some viral ads. I have mentioned it before, and I will mention it again as I think its important. A good viral campaign will not push the brand in front of the consumers eye. It won't wave around sale discounts, brand logo's, or product prices. They are so successful because their commercial sales pitch is so ambient we don't realize it. Normally a small logo at the end or brand name appears, but its at the end, and by this time we watched the ad.
Its successful elements of shock, humor, edgy, or successfully communicating the brands service or products comes first, overriding the second (the brand). This is what makes us pass it on, unaware that we are subconsciously selling the brand to the next person, and unaware subconsciously that we have been subject to an advertising message because it comes from our friends first. The brand second.
Media Savvy
'Yes, absolutely. But as we exist in a media savvy world, so the stunts have to be equally savvy. They need to have a style and humor that makes sense with the brand they are related to, rather than just being a stunt for a stunt’s sake'
Kevin Murray, Chairman of the Bell Pottinger Group, the Public Relations Division of Chime Communications
If the brand image is not ambient enough within the message, it becomes just another advertising which ultimately get rejected, ignored and worst of all, not passed on.
We as consumers are becoming extremely media savvy, we are starting to know, if not already how the media works. We are becoming more and more savvy of what we are being fed, we can chose what we want to digest, but also what we leave on the plate.
If a viral ad becomes like any other traditional advert, more than likely we will go starving
No comments:
Post a Comment