The problem with consumer-generated media is just that: the consumer generates the media. Consumers are in control. The example of Chevy Tahoe should give all marketers a pause for thought. If you are not a brand that is universally loved, can you afford to give control to people that may not have your best interests at heart?
Just in case you have not heard, here is a quick summary of the story so far.
Hoping to create buzz and leverage the power of viral marketing for Chevy Tahoe, Campbell-Ewald came up with a great idea: get the new version of the Tahoe placed on the U.S. version of “The Apprentice,” create a related site with video clips, soundtracks and all the resources to allow people to make their own Tahoe ads and mail them to their friends. While Melissa Tezanos, spokesperson for Chevrolet, claimed that the company “anticipated that there would be critical submissions,” they probably did not anticipate the scale of them. Reports are that the site received over 3000 negative ad submissions before it was forced to close early. Many of the ads “escaped” the official site and can be found on youtube. My personal favorites include: “Snow Killer” and “Cars Drive…”
So, what can we learn from this?
If you believe the adage that any publicity is better than no publicity, then Chevy Tahoe got plenty of coverage in the media, including CNBC and the the New York Times. While the negative ads may have been the focus of the coverage, the footage in them was chosen by the agency, so playing the ad made sure the brand name and vehicle were featured, even if the text and voiceover may not have been complementary. Would a traditional TV campaign have generated as much coverage? I doubt it.
However, one does have to ask whether any publicity is really better than none. What this example of consumer-generated media demonstrates is that:
- Negative news spreads wider and faster than positive
- Activists play much more of a role in any form of consumer-generated media than normal consumers
- There are risks as well as rewards in trying to generate viral marketing in this way
Marketers who are seeking to leverage consumer-generated media and buzz would do well to do their homework ahead of time. Things to check out would include:
- How many people love your brand?
- Are they vocal supporters who will come to your defense if things go wrong?
- Who are the vocal minority that might seek to undermine your initiative?
- How sympathetic is the wider population to their cause/message?
- What end-result are you really aiming for?
In the case of the Chevy Tahoe Apprentice ads, it is the last point that is the most telling. Yes, the brand received far more coverage than it might have done otherwise, but did that coverage improve peoples’ attitudes of the Tahoe and make them want to buy it? Again, I doubt it.
In conclusion, I believe this is a great creative idea applied to the wrong brand. Unfortunately, this is one of the most common mistakes in the world of advertising and it applies to all media, new and old.
(22 votes, average: 3.64 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
April 21st, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Sorry, Nigel. I don’t agree entirely. My thoughts fleshed out here:
April 23rd, 2006 at 5:01 am
Hi Nigel - I think I get your point, but not sure a lot of brands have only lovers, can this prevent them to proactively encourage WOM, not sure? In essence, the GM intiative is really to be encouraged to move marketing towards co-creation and more respect consumer respect. Of course, not easy, but I still applaude the initiative and encourage others to try, in the long run, these brands will win…
April 24th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Thanks for the comments guys, much appreciated.
Max, I will write a more detailed response to your post when I have had a chance to digest it, but I think you are both suggesting that marketers must engage with their consumers precisely because a brand only exists in the minds of its consumers. Marketers have to give up the illusion of control and accept the bad with the good.
I agree 100% that marketers do not control brands, but they do help shape them. Their actions have the potential to strengthen or harm the brand and they need to ensure the risk/reward equation is likely to come out on the plus side.
This post was designed to encourage people to think through the issues related to this type of initiative before they embark on them. More later.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:18 am
I don’t think it was applied to the “wrong brand”, it was simply just the wrong time for Chevy to utilize this idea.
American automakers are having a tough time right now, not getting their products right, not getting the designs right, overall, not making their cars right. Their employees have lost confidence, investors are upset and their customers are disappointed. Furthermore, they are getting beat by the Asian carmakers so badly that when you / your company are in that position, people will start to make fun of you/ your brand.
So, when you put all of the above situations together and still try to introduce a product that has little differentiations from other product lines, what do you expect to happen?
If the same marketing idea was initiated by Lexus, or maybe not even Lexus, let’s say Toyota or even Scion, then I am sure the outcome would have been very different.
May 9th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Wrong brand or wrong time, the end-result is the same. I agree that this idea would work really well for a brand like Scion that is intended to appeal to a more niche target.