My Life, My Content
American Express is running a contest, excuse me– I forgot to use the appropriate “now” marketing buzzword– a consumer generated content campaign where the public-at-large can submit fifteen-second clips of how AmEx makes their lives special.
And they’re already doing a 200% better job than Chevy.
Unlike the Chevy Tahoe fiasco (no, really, you should click that link), this one is filtered and contains a very important clause within the Terms and Conditions policy that went curiously missing from the Chevy Tahoe clusterfuck campaign (emphasis, mine):
Upon submission, all clips will be reviewed by the Sponsor to determine if the clip will be posted on the website based on the following criteria:
- Is there any inappropriate content (nudity, foul language, violence)?
- Does the clip answer one of the 13 “My Life My Card” questions provided?
- Does the clip meet the basic technology requirements?
- Does the clip hold the viewers interest?
- Is the clip brand appropriate?
- Would card members and the Tribeca Film Festival audience enjoy viewing the clip?
- Does the clip have appropriate viral “buzz” value?
Hint: sunny, happy videos are brand appropriate. Raking American Express over the coals for facilitating ever-expanding consumer debt? Not so much.
Why didn’t Chevy’s brand managers include this clause? They’re, uh, supposed to be looking out for the brand, right?
Steve Rubel over at Micro Persuasion seems to think the Chevy Tahoe campaign was a success based solely on the fact “we’re still talking about” it.
He couldn’t be more off-base.
For starters, having a bunch of marketing and ad wonks talking about your campaign does not equate to success (it’s about the consumer, remember– oh, and sales).
Think the public’s still talking about it? Ignoring for a minute that the blogosphere is not the public-at-large, check out the mentions of “Chevy Tahoe” on Technorati. Looks like even the blogosphere mentions are right back where they were before the campaign broke.
Secondly, assuming the public is talking about it (and they’re not), and what they’re saying could best be described in the simple equation, “Chevy = Suckers,” would you consider that a success for the brand?
Not on this planet.
Email Article Wednesday, April 26th, 2006 at 11:27am Mack Simpson
Filed under: Ad Jungle, Ad Nauseam | add this post to del.icio.us
Technorati Tags: Advertising, Marketing, Chevy, Consumer Generated Content, CGC
2 Comments Add your own
1. makethelogobigger | April 26th, 2006 at 11:50 am
I hafta say if we’re talking PR, then it seems those peeps ALWAYS view any attention as good attention.
I’m on the creative side and will go with protecting the brand first. Besides, any brand will always have a part of its audience who hates some aspect of what the brand is doing no matter how much you try and please them.
You can focus group the Pope and someone will have negative comments like:
“Well I don’t understand why the robes have to be white.”
“Yeah, and that hat, what’s up with that?”
I might as well write my own obit after that last remark:
R.I.P. MTLB. 4/26/06 FORMER BLOGGER STRUCK DOWN IN PRIME OF HIS BLOGGING YOUTH FOR REMARKS MADE AGAINST THE POPE AND GO…
2. Mack Simpson | April 26th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Yeah, I don’t buy the PR version of brand logic. By their reasoning (or at least, by that reasoning), every time a new medical report comes out about the dangerous effects of smoking, the “there’s no such thing as bad PR” camp should be cheering because, at the very least, someone’s talking about cigarettes. Puh-lease.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed