The Cluetrain Jumps the Tracks

This is an entry I’ve been meaning to write for a few weeks. I’ve put it off not because I didn’t know what to say (that’s the easy part), but because there’s just been so much going on in the ad jungle of late.

Back in late May, some rather ingenious students at M.I.T. designed and built a raft made entirely of Gatorade bottles and duct tape. They published their picto-story on their Xanga page and, faster than you can sing “Row, Row, Row Your Boat,” the story began spreading in typical viral fashion.

Rightfully proud of the fact they didn’t die a watery death in the middle of the Charles River, the students wrote to Gatorade and told their story.

By way of response, the kids received a personal letter from someone at Gatorade, some coupons and a few freebies, which is worth noting.

I’ll get back to that, but before I do it’s also worth noting that in the ensuing flurry of “oh, look at this” posts, one popped up taking Gatorade to task for not creating an ad around the students’ exploits and urging Gatorade to “get on board the cluetrain” and do so immediately.

Fine. This is the Democratic Internet (unless you’re logged in from China) and everyone’s entitled to their opinion. Whether or not it’s an informed, well-considered opinion is an entirely different matter altogether.

So here is mine: should Gatorade rush out and create a spot centered on these two hella-smart kids and their three-hour tour aboard the S.S. Is It In You? Nope.

Anyone who’s read this blog longer than a week or two knows I have some issues with consumer-generated content. Actually, I don’t have issues with consumer-generated content, I have issues with the people who profess to be thoughtful, cutting edge marketers who don’t think through the issues surrounding CGC and how it intersects with the brand before launching a smug tirade on how they are the ones who “get it” and how every brand should jump in with both feet and launch a CGC campaign now, damn the consequences (it’s all good) and damn the rationale for why (”come on, this is hot, you should do it”–or worse, “you should do it because it validates my consultancy“).

I’m absolutely certain there’s a way to do CGC right and do it in a way that deserves to be blown out into a full-fledged broadcast campaign. The Gatorade raft simply isn’t it for one very large reason: it’s off brand.

Before I go on, let’s pretend the world isn’t familiar with the product and consider for a moment what Gatorade represents as a brand and then look to see if two product-fanatical kids, floating on a raft made of bottles in the middle of the Charles River, are a good fit for a multi-million dollar ad campaign under its brand umbrella.

Gatorade, the product, promotes a very well defined proposition: it contains the fuel athletes need to perform at their peak performance potential. The brand, and the imagery associated with it, easily falls out of this rather simple proposition: athletes (and, often specifically, athletes known for delivering outstanding peak performances); high-intensity, hard-core physical exertion; force of will under difficult and trying situations; blood, sweat and tears; and, finally, triumph in the face of impossible circumstances.

If you’re following along you can probably already see how the story of a lazy sunny day’s float on a raft and the story of Gatorade’s brand don’t intersect. If you can’t and you’re in marketing, you should probably reconsider your choice of careers (if only for the sake of your clients).

Now the question might come up, “but why doesn’t Gatorade just create an ad about it, anyway? They have the money.”

First, they might have a lot of money, but they don’t have unlimited resources and, even if they did, you wouldn’t want to split your brand message into a million tiny voices showing each and every possible way the product can and might be used (no matter how off-brand the usage might be). Brands are built through consistency of messaging.

I come from the advertising camp that says “consumers are intelligent people,” and I know they will get to other usage occasions on their own with no reason to roll out a million dollar production defining each and every possible way to interact with the product (no matter how fanatical that interaction might be).

Let’s take Nike as an only slightly tangential example. Like Gatorade, their brand proposition is fairly simple to discern: they produce the equipment athletes need in order to get the most out of their physical activity.

Let me ask you this question: throughout the world’s population, where are Nike products used most frequently? On the playing field by a sweaty athlete or as everyday wear by people going about their daily business?

Points to you if you said everyday wear. Hell, I’m wearing a Nike soccer dry-weave shirt and Converse high-tops as I write this and I don’t intend to drop in to a half-pipe on my board, float a three pointer in from long range or head a ball into the net at the World Cup anytime soon.

Now, when was the last time you saw an ad campaign from Nike that showed their products in use by people sitting behind a desk, pecking away at their keyboard? You haven’t because it would be off brand and consumers are perfectly able to “get it” on their own. The lack of a million dollar ad campaign (or even an on-the-cheap, online CGC campaign) hasn’t prevented consumers from rightfully reaching the conclusion that, “Hey! I can use this product for something other than what they advertise!”

There is absolutely no reason to show each and every usage occasion for your product in an ad campaign and, in fact, it can be quite detrimental to do so. A large piece of the pie-of-reasoning why someone would choose Nike over Adidas is, in large part, due to how well they relate to the brand on a personal level and how much of that brand image they see reflected in themselves (or how much they wish to see).

And just because you’re a fan of the product and do fanatical things with it in your life, it doesn’t mean what you’re doing is of any benefit to the brand image, either.

I don’t care how fanatical he might be, seeing a hairy, overweight, translucently white bald man running naked down the street, showing off the Nike “swoosh” tattooed on his chest will do nothing but make me wince. Repeat that experience over and over again and I’ll eventually come to the conclusion that Nike’s not a brand “for me.”

This isn’t to knock what the M.I.T. students did; it’s just to say that, in order for it to make enough sense to warrant an ad campaign built around it, the raft simply doesn’t float. Had they used Jones Soda bottles, a brand built on its consumers’ fanatical (to the extreme) use of the product, sure, I can see that.

But Gatorade? Nope.

Now back to Gatorade’s response to the kids that I mentioned earlier. In the end, they received a couple of coupons, some freebies and a nice letter from Gatorade. While there’s no way I’d build a campaign around their rafting experience, Gatorade could have sweetened the pot a little and generated goodwill of a magnitude or two greater than what they did. As a brand, you reward loyal users (just not always with their own ad campaign).

But don’t tell me Gatorade needs to get on the cluetrain. They’re one of the few brands out there who consistently get it right when it comes to speaking to their core consumer (those athletes I mentioned earlier) in a voice that rings perfect-pitch true. And their ever-expanding penetration, share and frequency of use speaks volumes about the fact I’m not the only one who understands who the brand is, what they represent and whether or not they speak to me in an engaging way.

They do.

And if you’re a marketer or consultant scorning Gatorade’s hesitation at boarding the raft, you need to step back and reconsider your position.

That and retake your Marketing 101 class.

10 commentsEmail Article Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 at 12:27pm Mack Simpson

Entry Filed under: Ad Monkeys, Ad Jungle, Ad Nauseam       |       add this post to del.icio.us

Technorati Tags: Advertising, Gatorade, Raft, MIT, Cluetrain