In recent years, there has been a growing sentiment against fast food. First Lady, Michelle Obama had embarked on a “healthy eating campaign” and obesity has been recognized as a dangerously expanding epidemic. Muckraking films like Super Size Me and Fast Food Nation were not doing the brands like McDonalds any favors, either. At the same time, the British celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver had been campaigning on his show for American fast food chains to stop using ammonium hydroxide to convert otherwise inedible cow parts into a pink slime to be used as beef filler in burgers. In the UK and Ireland, McDonald’s is not allowed to use ammonium in its food. In the U.S., Burger King and Taco Bell already stopped using the chemical due to pressure from the public. McDonald’s needed to do some damage control in order to salvage their brand image.
Program Overview:
McDonald's approach was to focus their PR campaign on farming and wholesome ingredients in an attempt to steer the public away from the brand’s association with artificial chemicals. In January 2012, McDonald’s took this messaging to Twitter by starting the hashtag #MeetTheFarmers. The first tweet was: “Meet Dirk Giannini, McDonald’s lettuce supplier, as he shows u his life on the farm #MeetTheFarmers http://mcd.to/AyvF4M.” While McDonald’s was able to tell positive stories about their farmers, the hashtag proved to be limiting and the company wanted to share positive stories from all along the supply chain.
On January 18th, @McDonalds sent out two tweets under a new hashtag: “‘When you make something with pride, people can taste it,’ – McD potato supplier #McDStories http://t.co/HaPM5G9F” and “Meet some of the hard-working people dedicated to providing McDs with quality food every day #McDStories http://t.co/BoNIwRJS.” Under the hashtag, #McDStories, anyone could share their McDonald’s experience. Not just farmers, but also suppliers, employees, and especially customers.
Goals/Metrics:
The goal of this campaign was to spread positive images of McDonald’s as a wholesome dining experience. This was intended to fight against the public disdain against the brand for using artificial ingredients and contributing to the obesity epidemic.
Results:
Minutes after the initial #McDStories were posted, consumers started posting their own. The results were overwhelmingly negative, as detractors used the hashtag as a platform to share all possible negative facts and opinions about the brand.
@SkipSullivan picked up over 50 retweets when he wrote: “One time I walked into a McDonalds and I could smell Type 2 diabetes floating in the air and I threw up. #McDStories.”
Another popular tweet was sent out by @healthy_food: “I ate a @McDonalds cheeseburger a few years ago and got food poisoning so bad that I had to be hospitalized. That is my #mcdstories.”
These negative #McDStories rapidly went viral, and McDonald’s soon pulled the campaign.
Following the event, McDonald's social media director Rick Wion released the following statement to Business Insider:
“While #meetthefarmers was used for the majority of the day and successful in raising awareness of the Supplier Stories campaign, #mcdstories did not go as planned. We quickly pulled #mcdstories and it was promoted for less than two hours.
Within an hour of pulling #McDStories the number of conversations about it fell off from a peak of 1600 to a few dozen. It is also important to keep those numbers in perspective. There were 72,788 mentions of McDonald's overall that day so the traction of #McDStories was a tiny percentage (2%) of that.”
The next day, McDonald’s had moved on to a new hashtag: #LittleThings. The campaign was refocused to promote Chicken McBites, a popcorn-chicken style dish that would be available for a limited time. Double Tree by Hilton hotels was already using the hashtag at the time, leading to conflicting messages.
By the end of January, McDonald’s had agreed to stop using ammonium hydroxide in their food. They issued the statement: “The decision to remove BPI products from the McDonald's system was not related to any particular event but rather to support our effort to align our global beef raw material standards.”
Our Thoughts:
PR spin is ill-suited to social media, especially when you invite followers to give feedback in a public forum. If you ask your followers to share their stories, you are opening yourself to an equal proportion of detractors to advocates. At the same time, effective social media is a two-way street. Messaging needs to be authentic if you expect to receive a positive response. Those who are familiar with your brand will see right through a whitewashed story. The tweet “When you make something with pride, people can taste it” is clearly disingenuous when followers are being told on TV that the food is made with ammonium hydroxide, an ingredient that triggers disgust. This message invites anyone with an emotional investment in the brand to correct a statement that is clearly out of line with public knowledge. If McDonalds had done their research, they would have seen that Wendy’s suffered a very similar situation last year with their #HeresTheBeef campaign. Furthermore, the conflicting messaging with Double Tree is further evidence that the brand isn’t taking their social media seriously by doing the necessary research before initiating a campaign and thinking through the possible outcomes
If McDonald’s wanted the public to view their food in a more positive light, the best way to do so would be to show the steps they are taking to change their practices: to show evidence that they are becoming the company that they claim to be. The fact that McDonald’s stopped using ammonium hydroxide could have easily been spun into a more positive message. Some possibilities include that the brand could highlight that they are now using 100% natural beef, and signal it as a positive move of the company’s evolving practices, rather than as a compromise made because of public pressure.
Take Away:
There are several lessons brands can take away from #McDStories:
First and foremost, is the importance of research.Even a quick Google search can show you how similar campaigns have fared in the past and a search on Twitter will let you know if someone else is already using your hashtag.
The other big take-away is the importance of keeping your messages authentic.Do not tell your followers that you are something you are clearly not.Instead, show them that you are becoming something better, and celebrate it as something to be proud of.That way, even critics will reevaluate your image and will have nothing to call you out on.
In September 2011, Ragú (Unilever’s tomato sauce brand) decided to engage parents online through Facebook and Twitter. They started an online community called “Mom’s the Word on Dinner,” where parents could share their advice and tips about dinnertime. In order to expand their reach, Ragú, decided to reach out to Dad’s and get them involved in the conversation as well.
Program Overview:
Through the @ragusauce twitter channel, Ragú posted messages saying “show us some love if there is a Ragú Dad in your family” or “#momstheword vs. #dadstheword on dinner,” to encourage the public to share their perspectives. Aside from reaching out to the masses, they also hoped to leverage the influence of prominent dad bloggers.
@ragusauce reached out to six identified influencers by publicly directing discussion questions to their Twitter handles. Because the discussions were public, the bloggers’ followers were also able to comment on the answers and add their own input. Through word-of-mouth, more and more fathers were able to get involved in the conversation. To get the conversation going, half were tweeted “@[insert name here] who makes dinner in your house? mom or dad? http://ow.ly/6Gvff.” The other half were tweeted “@[insert name here] do your kids like it when you make dinner? http://ow.ly/6Gvff.” The links in these tweets redirected the bloggers to the video below.
To give an idea of what’s in the video, a group of Ragú’s ambassador mommy bloggers discuss what mealtime looks like in their households -- when Dad is responsible for cooking. Generally, the mothers poke fun at the men and the meals they prepare. The kids, however, generally enjoy these meals because they are fun, kid-friendly meals like “breakfast for dinner” or “grilling.” The video concludes with the moms suggesting Ragú’s recipes can be fun and easy mealtime options for Dad to prepare for the kids.
Goals/Metrics:
The goal of this campaign was to get more fathers following and engaging in Ragú’s discussions. This would presumably lead more fathers to think of Ragú when choosing a prepackaged sauce while preparing meals for the family. Engagement could be measured in several ways. On a surface level, Ragú could count how many new male followers were subscribing to @ragusauce since the campaign began. In addition, they could track how often they were being retweeted by men, and how often the #dadstheword hashtag was being used. New YouTube views would also suggest engagement, particularly ones that were redirected from the bit.ly links @ragusauce posted on Twitter. Ideally, the dad bloggers that Ragú reached out to would be tweeting about the brand and writing blog posts about their message. This would generate new content and new discussions among the influencers’ dad followership.
Results:
Ragú’s posts did get the attention of dad bloggers and through their replies the video and conversation went viral. However, the response was overwhelmingly negative! The fathers largely felt that Ragú’s video was playing to outmoded gender stereotypes and therefore insulting. Also, the video did not take into account how involved many of the fathers are with their children. Additionally, many of the fathers expressed frustration that the conversation portrayed them as being less competent in the kitchen than their female counterparts. They took offense that the mothers were offering Ragú recipes as something simple enough that even Dad could not mess it up.
One blogger, CC Chapman, wrote a widely circulated post entitled “Ragú Hates Dads.” This post alone spawned 260 comments, 352 Tweets, and 295 Facebook shares.
“As the person in my household who does all of the shopping and all of the cooking I took offense to this video. Implying that dads can only cook the simple things and Ragú is somehow going to help make that easier. Give me a break! I’m sure there are plenty of couples out there where this might be true, but once again we have a brand who has decided to only focus on the mom side of the parenting equation and play into the stupid stereotypes that dads get pegged with all the time.”
--CC Chapman
@ragusauce never responded to the Twitter backlash, but Ragú did post a note on their Facebook page several days later. The note apologized for not giving the dads a better context to understand the video and that it was never their intention to offend anybody.
Too little too late.
Our Thoughts:
While the idea to get more dads talking about mealtime was a solid endeavor, the implementation was not well thought out. By researching the bloggers, Ragú would have learned that these dads are men that are extremely passionate about their roles as involved parents. Ideally, a video that target this audience should show a discussion among fathers where they share the ways they organize meals for their families. It is okay for Ragú sauce to make meals simpler, as long as it is done in a way that demonstrates the target audience is competent and caring. The video that was posted looks as if it were targeted to mothers rather than fathers. It also seems as if Ragú sent it to some fathers as an afterthought.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that bloggers get spammed all the time. So don’t do it. Brands need to be mindful to make every outreach targeted to the individual. This does not take a lot of effort, just some care. In this case, Ragú publicly sent the same messages to each blogger, creating the appearance of spam. By engaging in separate conversations with each blogger, the brand could get its message out in a way that is more accurately targeted and genuine.
Finally, brands should know to stay involved in a conversation after they start one. Ragú pitched questions to the six bloggers and then assumed that the discussion would take care of itself. A brand should be closely monitoring the responses to its questions so that it may be able to address any questions or misperceptions and make sure that its message is being understood. Waiting several days to post a note on Facebook allows backlash too much time to build up.
Take Away:
Social media is about interaction, not broadcast. Social etiquette in cyberspace should be the same as etiquette in meatspace. You would not walk into a room and should the same message to six people, one after another. In person, you would also not ask someone a question and then walk out the door before you get a response. If you offend an individual in person, you would immediately apologize and clarify your position. You should always look at the person you are talking to, and make sure you are speaking in a tone that is not condescending. Simple manners go a long way in all aspects of life, whether it is physical or virtual. Hopefully brands will conduct themselves in this manner going forward.
Orabrush is an innovative tongue cleaner invented by Robert Wagstaff, who goes by the name Dr. Bob. He spent nearly a decade trying to market and sells his invention, but by 2009 he had sold fewer than 100 units. Dr. Bob spent $50,000 on an infomercial and even tried to sell the patent to bigger dental companies, but there remained little interest in the tongue cleaner. Because Orabrush was a small business, retailers would not give it any attention.
With nothing to lose, Dr. Bob offered his product to a marketing class at Brigham Young University's graduate school to be used as a case study. The students there concluded that 92 percent of the retail market would not be interested in Orabrush.
One student, Jeffrey Harmon, pointed out that 8 percent was still a large consumer base if approached properly. He saw the internet as the best avenue to market the product directly and bypass the retailers. Harmon convinced Dr. Bob that he could create a successful campaign for Orabrush.
Program Overview:
In October 2009, Harmon released a YouTube video which showed viewers how they could test if they had bad breath, or halitosis. His video showed simple ways for viewers to test at home, and then explained how bad breath forms from decaying organic matter and bacteria on the tongue. The video then showed how Orabrush can be used to remove the bacteria.
The mix of information and humor boosted online discussions and prompted Orabrush to continue releasing “edutainment” videos about halitosis on a weekly basis. Recurring setups included “Diaries of a Dirty Tongue,” in which an actor wearing a giant foam tongue costume gets into halitosis-related shenanigans. Others featured an actor dressed in a lab coat and glasses speaking out about his fear of bad breath, or “halitophobia,” and pulls in regular people from the street to test their breath. This type of content was easy to repurpose by bloggers and other social influencers, which meant that they could get large exposure through their social networks.
Goals/Metrics:
Orabrush’s goal in making these videos was to reach out to consumers that were actively concerned about their bad breath. By showing exactly how halitosis forms, the videos could then demonstrate how Orabrush is advantaged in fighting it. Viewers could then go to Orabrush’s online store, and try it out themselves. With enough views, Orabrush hoped that they could build a passionate community of followers that would spread the word of their product and why it was important.If these followers could build up enough buzz, then perhaps retailers would see the value of the Orabrush.
The key metrics in this case were views and sales in the online store. As Orabrush was only selling about one unit every 36 days before the campaign, any new influx in sales could only be attributed to the videos.
Results:
Since 2009, the Orabrush YouTube Channel has gathered over 39 million views, with over 164 thousand subscribers and 290 thousand Facebook fans. As a result of the online buzz, distributors in more than 50 retailers with 15 thousand stores in nine countries are now carrying the product. Major retailers include Walmart, which has given Orabursh nationwide distribution, and Boots, one of Britain’s top pharmaceutical retailers. This is a drastic jump from when the product was selling at one unit per 36 days and no retailers were carrying it. Orabrush attributes its success to the videos, and even brands its packages with the phrase, “As seen on YouTube.”
Conclusion:
Orabrush is an example of YouTube video marketing done right. Orabrush got viewers to follow its channel, not because it was pitching a new product, but because it was producing relevant content. A consumer who is unfamiliar with a relatively new product is not just going to run out and buy it just because a brand pushes it. If the brand establishes knowledge and authority on a subject, then its product pitch becomes more credible. Engaging content that goes beyond shameless self-promotion will also be more likely to attract inbound links from other blogs and social media channels. Material that can be repurposed becomes a lot more attractive for others to share and spread the message.Because new content is produced on a regular basis, followers know to keep coming back for more.This enabled Orabrush to grow a dedicated community of followers. Other brands would do well to follow Orabrush’s example and generate content that demonstrates problem-solving expertise.
ConAgra Foods, under a licensing agreement with Marie Callender’s Pie Shops, produces and sells frozen meals to grocery stores under that brand name.In order to raise the esteem for frozen dinners in the public eye, ConAgra brought in Ketchum Public Relations to launch a new campaign.Ketchum recruited the renowned food analyst, Phil Lampert, as well as the celebrity chef, George Duran (of Ultimate Cake-Off fame). The firm sought to connect them with food bloggers, so that the bloggers could evangelize the campaign.
Program Overview:
Ketchum’s method was to create a temporary, underground Italian restaurant in Manhattan’s West Village, called Soto Terra.This restaurant was headed by George Duran, who invited prominent New York food and mom bloggers to enjoy an exclusive four-course dinner with him and Phil Lampert. As an extra bonus, each blogger was provided with a pair of tickets to give away to readers. While the combination of celebrity and exclusivity created a highly enticing draw for foodies, the major pull for the bloggers was the opportunity to engage in roundtable discussion with these highly-regarded food experts.
Once there, the bloggers were presented with meals they believed were prepared by the celebrity chef. In truth, these were finely arranged Marie Callender’s frozen dinners. ConAgra planted hidden cameras to catch the candid reactions of theinvited bloggers/guests.ConAgra expected that the influencers would post their reaction videos on their blogs and write about their pleasant surprise.Meanwhile George Duran was telling his guests about his methods in preparing these meals and how they were some of his finest work. It was not until after the dessert that the truth was revealed. ConAgra’sassumptionwas if the food bloggers did not know that the food was frozen, they would not know the difference. Food bloggers, of all people, should have known well enough that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Goals/Metrics:
The goal of the campaign was to get bloggers to evangelize their reaction videos amongst their social networks.If followers saw that respected authorities on food could mistake Marie Callender’s frozen dinners for authentic Italian food, then they would be influenced to try it themselves.In addition, the free ticket giveaways would pull in audience attention early on, and they would continue to check back to find out who won the free meal.The metrics used to measure the success of this campaign could be measured by the number of positive/neutral impressions from video views and original social media content, and also by counting the number of shares, likes, retweets and comments generated in response to this content.
Results:
To the bloggers, however, the surprise was not pleasant at alland many were outright insulted. Some felt put on the spot, as they had reacted positively to the food in front of the chef so not to hurt his feelings. Had they known all along that these were prepackaged meals, the bloggers would have been more honest in their reactions, and there would not be video footage of their false endorsements. Others were simply embarrassed to have been duped. The bloggers were putting their reputation at stake by propagating the deception through ticket giveaways. Many of the bloggers were disappointed that the roundtable discussions they had been hyped for were of no real importance to the event’s organizersand nothing more than a distraction. Since this was a publicity event, the message being sent was of an advertisement than a dialog or conversation. The bloggers were initially attracted to the idea thatthey could share their ideas. Influencers want to have influence.
The biggest problem, though, was that by not being forthright, ConAgra had inadvertently violated the dietary restrictions of many of the invited bloggers. A good portion of them were actively opposed to things such as artificial ingredients and processed meats. These are health food bloggers; their focus is not an aesthetic choice, but a lifestyle choice. These people are VERY against processed food. Several of the bloggers described this as being akin to feeding pork to aperson who follows a kosher diet. Below are links to a few of the reactions from the bloggers in attendance:
Many of the problems stemmed from the fact that ConAgra’s PR agency went after the wrong type of bloggers. The target audience for Marie Callender’s is not hardcore foodies. Foodies tend to appreciate fresh, high-quality ingredients that are rarely found in mass-produced, processed dinners.We see the target audiences as being people like busy professionals and working mothers.These are people who do not have the time to prepare a fresh or complicated meal.They need something that is easy and quick, but that also tastes good.While foodies cook for pleasure, this audience cooks out of necessity.
There are food and parenting blogs that are specifically aimed to reach the busy working person.Since they represent ConAgra’s target, ConAgra should want the influencers to engage with the product in the same way that the consumer would.Rather than invite the bloggers out to a restaurant, ConAgra could bring the dinner in and allow the bloggers to try a selection of Marie Callender’s meals at home with their own families.Likewise, instead of offering ticket giveaways readers could enter for a chance to win a two-week supply of Marie Callender’s meals.This is a prize that would clearly be helpful to a busy individual, especially if that person has a family to feed.The end goal would be to get the bloggers to endorse Marie Callender’s food by giving positive reviews through blog posts and contest promotion.By engaging their audience in the contest, the bloggers would be getting their readers to talk about Marie Callender’s meals throughout the entirety of the contest period.
Conclusion:
We can take several lessons away from this experience:
First and foremost, brands need to do their research and make sure they are hitting their target audience. Just as important, brands need to remember to respect the intelligence of their influencers and the general public.By treating influencers as a cog in a bigger machine, brands waste the opportunity to be part of the conversation with that influencer’s network.The message goes directly from sender to receiver, but it does not invite anyone to come back and continue engaging with the brand.Bloggers are a more connected group that can best help you if they are in on the set up as opposed to being used to get a result.
In WOM, the ends do not justify means.Brands and influencers need to work together in a way that is mutually beneficial and built upon a foundation of trust.ConAgra tried to be overly clever and overly secretive, but brands need to show bloggers that they respect them as influencers by being transparent.Hardcore deception does not lead to evangelization; at least not in a positive way.
We seek to find social media campaigns that were solid in concept, but failed in execution. We examine these programs, find where they went wrong, and then determine new ways these campaigns could have been better carried out. As our motto says, by identifying and fixing problems we can ALL do better.
Some of the most prominent failed campaigns can be found at the top of the news headlines: a twitter misfire, missing the target audience, not addressing problems quickly enough, etc. These are traps that marketers fall into repeatedly, and occasionally they can snowball into a PR disaster. The prominence of these fumbles is so high that it discourages some companies from using social media at all, but is a mistake.
Some companies are uncomfortable with the idea of relinquishing a measure of control of their campaign and messaging to advocates in the blogosphere. Yet, the decision to not leverage the power of social media just because of others’ misfires is short sighted.
While this site is dedicated to demonstrating how social media campaigns can be more effectively executed, we will not touch programs that failed as a result of a lapse in thought. The problem is that there simply is no fix for stupidity. To help you better understand the kind of campaigns we will not touch on this site (regardless of how funny some of them might be) we have listed six famous case studies in which major campaigns backfired as a result of thoughtlessness:
Kenneth Cole’s Twitter Blunder: A few months ago, Kenneth Cole announced his spring collection by tweeting, "Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is that they heard our new spring collection is available at http://bit.ly/KCairo -KC." After the tweet went out, Cole came under fire for being insensitive to the plight of the Egyptian people, with some calling for a boycott of his company. Beside fact that the tweet was not funny, Cole was clearly piggybacking on the media buzz surrounding the Egyptian revolution and the role Twitter was playing in it. His comments trivialized the Egyptian conflict and made Cole's brand look superficial and insensitive. Someone from his marketing team actually thought this through and decided that mocking a violent overthrow and revolution would be a good idea to sell shoes.
Lesson Learned: Social Media has rules and norms the communities follow. While you might think it is cute or cleaver to use these to your advantage, you run a huge risk of having a well formed and well organized tide against you and your brand. Remember, the reason you want to be on social media is the speed and ease messages spread to your target market. Common sense would dictate that you would want to spread messages that reflect well on you.
Cisco Imitates Old Spice Campaign: Cisco (the networking technology company) tried to piggyback on the success of the "sexy Old Spice Man" campaign by encouraging fans to visit the Cisco Twitter accounts and tweet at "Ted from accounting" with the hashtag #CiscoSpice. They could also comment on the blog in order to get a personalized video. Aside from this campaign being a very blatant imitation of the highly successful old spice campaign (the word “spice” is even part of the Twitter handle), Cisco's dour-looking Ted from accounting was utterly unremarkable and not engaging. Cisco was attempting to go for parody, but Ted did not reflect the brand well. The Old Spice Man gave off the image of sexiness and masculinity (if somewhat corny) to a brand of deodorant, while Ted made Cisco look dull and nerdy. This kind of program cannot be fixed as it is just a bad idea from inception.
Lesson Learned: While it is always beneficial to recognize the success of other campaigns, it is important to come off as a leader rather than a follower. It is always best to avoid copying other campaigns, but even worse to flaunt your status as a copycat. Aside from this, it is also important that your spokesperson is actually interesting and projects positive qualities onto your brand.
Chevy’s “Make Your Own Tahoe Commercial”: This classic blunder made some of the funniest YouTube videos of 2006. Unfortunately, the joke ended up being at the expense of Chevy. General Motors promoted a campaign in which they would provide users with templates by which they could design their own Chevy Tahoe commercials. Users could arrange stock footage and music, along with their own text, to create authentic looking commercials. The problem here is that many environmentalists created their own versions that derided the auto company for its destruction to the environment. These videos spread like wildfire and, rather than promote the Tahoe, the most popular ads propagated its faults. The debacle leaves one to question, what good could possibly come from having people create Chevy commercials out of stock assets? Few will share the videos and Chevy does not need to use them as a brand, nor should they want to.
Lesson Learned: Be careful who you give the keys of your car to, as somebody may be looking to drive it off a cliff. Social media is great for communicating. But, there are at least 2 sides to every conversation online. Also, if you don’t really have a strategy (and we would argue Chevy did not as creating commercial with stock footage is little more than a pre-school activity), you invite the pranksters, mean spirited and bored to control you brand image.
Skittles Social Media Campaign: In March 2009, Skittles decided to embrace social media by making their home page be their Twitter feed. The feed not only listed Skittles’ own tweets, but also the chatter from other users that mention the brightly colored candies. Skittles did not account for the fact that the candies were frequently mentioned in profane and inane Tweets. Soon, Skittles homepage became a Technicolor graffiti wall of inappropriate tweets. Aside from showing people that they were present on Twitter, it is not clear what Skittles was trying to accomplish with this campaign.
Lesson Learned: When your strategy is to give your brand over to the whim of online pranksters, mean-spirited and bored, you should not be surprised at the result or that these people always out shout your fans.
Denny’s Twitter campaign: In 2010, Denny’s printed on their menus to “join the conversation” on Twitter. The problem was that the @Dennys account was the Twitter handle for Dennys Hsieh, a nondescript man living in Taiwan (Denny’s owned the accounts @DennysAllNightr and @DennysGrandSlam). Denny’s was actually directing their fans away to someone else’s Twitter. Rather than recall the menus that were sent to 1,500 restaurant locations, Denny’s tried to buy the @Dennys account from Hseih, but he was not willing to sell. This error lasted for over four months. This mess could have been avoided if someone had simply proofread the menus beforehand. Denny’s marketing people should have been the first to know that they did not own the @Dennys Twitter account.
Lesson Learned: This is truly a case of “you can’t fix stupid.” Proofread before your print, and there is no excuse not to know your own Twitter account, especially when you are telling others to follow you on it. There is no fix for this except good execution. There is an old saying that a “C” level idea with “A” level execution is always better than the other way around.
Kraft Foods’ “Sing for Your Beef” Video Contest: In 2009, Kraft Foods started a YouTube video contest in which fans could submit videos of them “singing an ode to beef and A1 steak sauce.” A1 awarded the best ones with a year supply of free steak for the winner and their family (awarded as winner's choice of $5,200 cash or $5,200 Omaha Steaks gift card). Other finalists were given $500 cash or a $500 Omaha Steaks gift cards. The goal of this contest was to get people involved with the product and to share the videos with others. Since 2009, the total upload views amounted to 235,481. After three years this is not a significant number of views. Many of the videos submitted had little to do with beef and did not reflect the brand well, some even making fun of the idea of singing to meat. The winning video, as seen below, shows a guy in a Batman costume screeching a metal rock ode to beef. The focus is on the ridiculousness of the scene, rather than the product. If this is the winning video, one can imagine what the others would be like. In the end, “Sing for Your Beef,” proved to be inconsequential. This campaign sprang from a flawed idea, and it is not easy for casual fans to make their own videos. They must take the time to stage, film, write a song, and edit before submitting. The incentive is not great enough to get a significant number of people to submit quality videos.
Lesson Learned: Do not expect consumers to put in a lot of effort without a significant incentive. Also, if the concept of your campaign sounds ridiculous, people are going to make fun of it. These are not the people you want representing you.
We can all do better than this. We have seen that social media is something that cannot be left as an afterthought. If someone is not paying attention, a little mistake can turn into a big problem. Now that we have established the kind of campaigns Fixsed is not interested in covering, we can focus on the problems that marketers encounter even when they do think through their plans.
Since February, Miracle Whip has been working to rebrand itself as the “edgy” sandwich condiment through its “We’re Not for Everyone” campaign.A series of television spots featured celebrities, such as Paulie D (of Jersey Shore fame), either praising or bashing the product.It is almost unheard of to have a promotion where half of the product’s endorsements actually try to persuade people against buying it.Paulie D even mentions in his spot, “I wouldn’t even use it as hair gel…It’s disgusting.”One could only guess that the intention was to make the mayonnaise substitute something that people would get passionate about, whether it was to divide people or bring them together.In early July, Miracle Whip decided to take the love/hate relationship to the next level with a YouTube video contest.The rules were simple enough:romantic couples could enter 60 second videos explaining how miracle whip has affected their relationship.The winning couple would receive $25,000 to cover their wedding or their divorce.
There are several problems that arise from this kind of contest, the least of which is its controversial topic.A contest centered on divorce may be unsettling to many consumers, as the division of two people’s lives is often a very difficult and painful transition.The bigger problem, however, is that when it comes down to it, very few people will be able to enter this contest.Video contests in general present their own sets of problems, including the fact that they require entrants to invest a significant amount of time and effort to come up with an idea, script it, practice the scene, film the scene, edit the footage, and upload it to the internet.Realistically, a good portion of the eligible audience will not put that much work into it.Once you narrow down the pool to those willing to do the work, you have to narrow it down again to just people that are in relationships, and then narrow it down again to couples that have already decided to get married or divorced, but have not already done so.In the case of divorce, the applicant pool is limited even further by the fact that a good portion of the separated couples will not be on good enough terms to work together, leading to a very small eligibility pool.By the end of July, there were only six video entries, not counting the ones put up as examples.
The other major problem is the one that was mentioned earlier: half of these entries are promoting how much they do not like miracle whip and specifically why.Even in the example videos provided by Kraft, such as the video above, we see spouses expressing their disgust with the product and that they would never let their children have it.Kraft’s intention was to get people fired up about miracle whip, so that its supporters would be more vocal in advocating it against regular mayonnaise.However, the goal of a marketing campaign is to bring people together to support a product, not divide them around it. Do broken relationships really make people want to go out and buy mayonnaise?A publicity stunt works to get attention, but not all publicity is good publicity, and not all good publicity translates to sales.
When looking at the best way to fix this campaign, it is clear that the video contest was the wrong method to utilize.The rules and limited applicant pool only make it harder for people to get involved, when the campaign should be pulling them in.Even when seeing positive videos on YouTube, you are aware that they are saying positive things on behalf of Miracle Whip, rather than out of genuine passion.People forget that the goal of a social media campaign is not to get the most “likes” on Facebook or the most followers on Twitter, but to create a network of real people spreading your message to other real people through word of mouth.Platforms like YouTube can be the channel through which this is done, but the video itself is not the actual goal.Bloggers are an effective way to spread third-party endorsements, as they are commentators that are not affiliated with the brand.This makes their endorsement more credible.One approach that would utilize bloggers could be a Miracle Whip recipe contest.Bloggers could be brought in to judge the contest, which would encourage them to write positively about it, and spread it among their spheres of influence.After the contest is finished the recipes could then be collected into a book, and then given out to bloggers to review or give away.Bloggers like giveaways because they drive new people to their blogs.Not only does this method promote brand recognition, but it also creates an easy way to measure the return on investment.Bloggers offer a form of third-party endorsement which is a lot more credible than a self-promoting video contest.Nobody seriously believes that miracle whip can be the glue that binds a relationship together, no matter how many times they see a video telling them otherwise.However, an endorsement from a respected third party can be very persuading when choosing which condiment to prepare a meal with.
The final outcome of the “We’re Not for Everyone” video contest remains to be seen, but judging by the lack of submissions it has received so far, it does not look like it will end up boosting sales by any significant number.The contest does end on August 23, so there is still time to enter if you are so inclined.
The City of Austin designed the “Dare to Go Zero” Campaign to inspire Austin residents to reducehousehold waste. By extension, this would reduce the city’s waste management expenses and be productive for the environment.However, the nearly $100,000 marketing budget given to this campaign ended up being a waste in and of itself, as the city marketed the program on its own and did not choose to include others who could have helped to make it known to a wider audience.
In order to prompt families to recycle, the city produced a reality show called Dare to Go Zero.This program followed the lives of four Austin families over the course of five weeks as they competed against each other to reduce the household waste.The problem with this program was not in its content – it was well regarded critically – but rather in the way it was marketed and promoted.Episodes were exclusively broadcast on a local cable access station, with the episodes uploaded later to YouTube.
It would not be a stretch to say that local-access television is very limited in the demographics it can reach, particularly when compared to the tech-savvy bloggers and social media producers who might be able to advocate for the show through word of mouth, many of whom reside in Austin.Viewers with digital cable or satellite television would be unlikely to find the show even in passing, due to the way the channels are formatted.The final episode picked up only a meager 220 total hits a full two after being uploaded.The number of views was so negligible; it makes one wonder where the $100K marketing budget disappeared.
While this story appears to be a local anecdote, it is a parable for a much larger trap that companies fall into all the time: the “build it and they will come” marketing strategy.This approach does not work.Too often companies believe they can promote their message entirely on their own, that they are the only channel of distribution necessary: being both part and parcel.Many have come to believe the hype that every company is a media company. But simply building and promoting it via their own means is not enough anymore; companies need to actively engage the online community in order to circulate their message.
Even with local-access programming, there are still several ways Austin could have successfully promoted its web series on YouTube.The following are approaches that could have been taken utilizing about a third of the $100,000 budget and delivering substantially greater results:
In a cosmopolitan city like Austin, there are a plethora of local, environmental, and lifestyle bloggers that would be keen to write about such a massive push by the city to reduce waste.Engaging this resource would allow the show to be advocated to the demographics that would find it the most appealing.As opinion leaders, a third party endorsement from a blogger not only tells the reader that the program exists, but also that it is worth paying attention.
One way to engage bloggers would have been to involve them in the competitions. By being part of the program, bloggers would be certain to write favorably about it while simultaneouslypromoting themselves in the process.
Bloggers could also have been invited to conduct interviews on the program or have offered their insights as “experts.”Doing this would flatter the bloggers and also acknowledge their expertise.Being part of the city’s campaign promotes their blogs, encouraging them to push the program online.
The program could even have been structured so that bloggers would have been judges on the program.Once again, this is an acknowledgement of the blogger’s authority on the subject as well as their audience(s).
Austin annually hosts the South by Southwest music festival.Bloggers fly in from all over the country to attend and participate in the social media sessions and partake of the festivities.This City of Austin should have been keen to leverage this event by announcing the program during SXSW.
Another way to incentivize blogger involvement is to host an event that they could enjoy.The message of waste reduction and sustainability would lend itself well to put on a “nothing wasted” party.The city could have cheaply rented out an empty storefront and planned the party according to the waste reduction practices suggested by the Dare to Go Zero campaign.This would have offered the city a chance to build relationships with the bloggers, and get them behind their cause.
Utilizing various social media tools, the city could have promoted a contest to encourage residents to watch the program and get involved.One way to go about this is to have people write responses to episodes or like the campaign on Facebook. From there, the city could have picked one participant, for whom the city would cover the power bill for in the next month. This would not be expensive for the city, but would a big enough incentive for an individual or family. It would not be a big commitment to watch a show if it will cover the power bill.
Keys to Remember and follow:
Every time a blogger that covers your market generates content, it reaches your audience
Readers comment on and pass along the posts and blogger tweets and share this information with others in your market directly
This creates a network of third-party endorsements, which not only promote the message but also give it credibility
A company or an organization that talks about itself is only interesting for half a second
It is through word-of-mouth that buzz can get generated, and people recognize that message as something worth paying attention to
The philosophy of “we are the message, we are the channel” falls flat when nobody knows that you exist or worse yet assumes they know what you have to say and tune you out
Every brand wants a cadre of evangelists who can help sway millions of readers with product reviews, blog posts, videos, tweets and what have you, but the only way to do that is to allow influencers the necessary space to make up their own minds, post what they believe, and adopt your message as their own.
Consider this actual email pitch sent to us by several well-known blogger from Visa:
Hi there! My name is [Jane Doe] and I love the forums on your site [BLOG NAME HERE]. I think your forums really stand out as an engaging online community and it seems like your members could definitely be interested in a new online shopping tool that is being introduced. This new tool could help members of your community who shop for the coolest new gadgets online, and may need help comparing products, getting opinions on their finds, and more. Visa is launching a new online shopping tool called Rightcliq™ that brings together the shopping experience to one place – from organizing your purchases to getting advice, from saving money to faster checkout on merchant sites. We are currently in the early product research phase and really want to know what people like you and the members of the [BLOG NAME HERE] community think about it. Can you help us out? We’d like to start a thread about Rightcliq™, have the members of the [BLOG NAME HERE] community give it a try, and give us honest feedback. You can find out more about the service at rightcliq.visa.com. We are only reaching out to a few communities and would love to work with you. Please let me know if you are interested and of course I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Besides the completely generic email – and that’s difficult enough to overlook – there is absolutely nothing of any benefit provided to the blogger here. The company wants to post in the bloggers forums, not even extending the blogger the opportunity to try out the service and thereby garner a third-party endorsement.
Any company-controlled marketing and sales pitch will have an immediately destructive impact on a decent forum. Every blogger knows that a company-controlled thread would kill that interpersonal dynamic in mere milliseconds. Unfortunately, very few companies understand seem to this, as evidenced above. In this case, the company essentially wants to poach the readers of the forum and take over a portion of the site, replacing it with their own information and message. Why would any self-respecting blogger or influencer want to promote something like that?
What’s more, from the standpoint of a professional marketer, this email shows a remarkable absence of understanding about how marketers ought to work with the momentum of the blogosphere. There’s nothing about this effort of Visa’s that seems designed to generate any real, measurable and mutually beneficial results.
To see the difference between this approach and one that could actually amount to meaningful results for both marketer and blogger alike, a marketer guided by the Social Media Judo mindset would have designed this program with the influencers in mind from the start. A couple simple-yet-significant changes could have shifted this effort from being the butt of blogger jokes to a genuine judo success:
Visa should have asked the bloggers to be in on the Beta test of the service before its launch (not pretending that it is still in Beta and trying to steal readers away from bloggers’ sites), giving them the chance to refine the system from the beginning and thus making them part of the team. The influencers could then claim credit to their readers for the product they helped build while simultaneously endorsing it – which, of course, they would do, as they helped build the thing.
This is a shopping site, so apparently Visa understands that people go to blogs for product advice. However, they failed to offer to link to the discussion on the blogger’s forums, thus driving a reciprocal relationship that shares traffic between the two. In other words, Visa had the opportunity to help the blogger both generate content for his site and at the same time help populate the site with inbound links from Visa – this could have been a very enticing proposition for the blogger.
Visa should have provided something of long-term value to the bloggers, thereby creating an implicit on-going dialogue with them. A promotional contest run by the bloggers with prizes for their readers, or deals exclusive to the bloggers’ communities, or anything else that would enable the bloggers to promote the new service (or all of the above) would have given these influential bloggers an active stake in promoting the new shopping service.
Instead, Visa chose what we call a “drive-by approach,” and they elicited a commensurate response from the bloggers. Not to mention, they probably didn’t achieve any goals that actually translated into meaningful business metrics for their business.
Successful bloggers are some of the best online marketers in the world -- they have to be, if they want to get hundreds of thousands, even millions of readers, coming back every month. Tapping into their expertise would’ve helped Visa create a campaign that created reams of content that engaged the audience in a way that Visa clearly does not understand.
If bloggers are part of the process and their content is being used as an integral part of Visa’s program, they then have a vested interest in promoting Visa’s message on their blogs and to their communities, forums, Twitter followers, YouTube subscribers, and so on.
When their content is being used and Visa is promoting their blogs on Visa’s own properties, it drives traffic to the bloggers. This in turn makes the bloggers more valuable to Visa and Visa more valuable to the bloggers, creating a virtuous cycle. And not to mention, all including the bloggers’ invaluable third-party endorsement of the product or service
This is the beauty of the judo approach. With a few small steps, we can transform a poorly conceived campaign and lousy email pitch into a true and credible influencer-marketing campaign, capable of delivering real results to the business while also driving traffic and increasing time-on-site. The company will give up some measure of control in the process, but in so doing it will gain evangelists who will promote the site and the brand today and also tomorrow while also transferring an invaluable third-party endorsement that drives sales.
We have all seen far too many bad social media programs in our short lives.But, what we haven’t seen is how to take a bad program and turn it into something good – Something that sells and meets business goals, not just social media for social media sake.
That is what this site is here to do.Anyone can just criticize. But, we can all become better at creating social campaigns when we see what goes wrong and constructively help turn bad into good.
Please share your program ideas in the comments section below and let's all get to working on making social media better.
