Just do nothing. According to Scott Donaton, that’s the secret to success in the new world of consumer-generated content. In an article in Monday’s Advertising Age, Scott scoffs at those who’d suggest that Chevy Tahoe’s experience with consumer-created commercials was a bad one for the brand. Suggesting that anyone who holds such a view is unfit to work in 21st century marketing, Scott dismisses us, saying “You’re free to go … the marketing business doesn’t need your services anymore. We have a toy railroad set as your lovely parting gift.” Well, come on then, Scott -send me my railroad set! Because I do think it’s naive to believe that marketers should leave brand-building to the masses.
Those of you who have read my posts on this topic will know that I believe that marketers need to chart a careful course if consumer-generated content is to benefit brands rather than undermine them (click here for the original post and here for the follow-up). Brands that have vocal detractors need to be wary of letting go completely, because the detractors will be all too happy to make the most of the opportunity to “comment” on the brand once its offered. Scott’s interpretation that Chevy was right to sit back and do nothing once the negative ads started to appear is right only because they had no other choice. Once the cat was out of the bag, there was no way to get it back in. The only thing to do was … nothing, and hope that the damage would not be too bad.
So what could might Chevy have done instead? Knowing that there was a group of vocal brand detractors, they could have limited the scope of the engagement. Instead of inviting anyone to participate, they could have contacted Chevy owners, and invited them to take part. This would not undermine the effectiveness of the basic idea, but it would help ensure a more positive result. Not only would it be owners making the ads, they would be mailing them to friends, like-minded consumers who might also buy a Tahoe.
Further, this approach would have the added benefit of being able to identify those who responded to the offer and engage them in further activities. For instance, Chevy could follow up with ardent off-road Tahoe drivers, inviting them to film their experiences and create their own documentary of life with a Chevy. By focusing on enthusiastic supporters, Chevy would then be better able to guide the outcome. Please note: guide - not control.
Well, enough of Chevy’s misadventure. I think I will just sit back and wait for my train set to arrive.
(17 votes, average: 3.65 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
May 8th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Though the old adage “any publicity is good publicity” appears like it may be true in this situation (only time will tell), this certainly will not always be the case. Most of the negative ads (and indeed the negative press that Chevy received as a result of them) appears to be anti-SUV, not necessarily anti-Tahoe. It would follow that this would not detract anyone who is already an SUV supporter from considering a Tahoe (it may even increase their chances of choosing this brand as their awareness could be heightened). These particular negative ads only serve to re-inforce the opinions of those who already had a negative opinion of the vehicle class as a whole.
In the end it looks like Chevy probably got lucky, and the idea of opening up a brand with many vocal detractors to this kind of “viral marketing” still appears to have a high potential to hurt the brand rather than help it.
May 9th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Much as I hate to admit it, I think I’m with you on this Nigel.
One of the joys of CGM and other forms of engagement marketing is that there are so many different ways to design and execute campaigns; and like any other form of marketing, there is always room for improvement, and for learning from experience. Marketers clearly still have a role to play in finding visions for their brands, and in trying to help consumers turn that vision into a reality (for the reality exists with consumers). The objective of building healthy and valuable brands remains a valid one, surely?
Most of the negative response to the Tahoe campaign seems to be generic anti-SUV sentiment, so perhaps the immediate damage to Chevy is only limited. But a campaign that acts as a mouthpiece for people to denigrate the type of product I produce and the kinds of people who buy from me can’t be all good for the long-term health of my brand.
I certainly wouldn’t knock GM for making use of CGM, but I’d definitely argue that there must have been a better way to execute the campaign, and to avoid the potentially negative repercussions.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Thanks for the comments guys.
Trevor, like you, I definitely would not knock any company for making use of CGM. But the fact that you cannot control CGM demands even more thought from brand marketers on what makes the most sense for a specific brand.