I haven’t seen this picked up anywhere, but this is rather huge when you think about the scope of this announcement: the iPhone 3.0 operating software is going to allow for microtransactions directly through it’s downloadble content (DLC). This seems to be rather overlooked by the blogosphere, but it starts to create a paradigm shift in mobile digitally distributed software (read: huge potential/opportunities for marketers).

The Big Deal

Let’s rewind first for the people who don’t know/care about what Apple’s doing with their iPhone. Through iTunes, you can get software (paid and free) for your phone. Up until now, updates were free, but now, developers are able to charge for content – allowing for microtransactions taking place within the software itself, instead of through iTunes. This creates new opportunities for how marketers take advantage of mobile apps.

A New Business Model

This changes the way products are sold, how they’re marketed, and how they’re used. Lots of software nowadays requires a premium component, but also requires a free trial component, so a lot of these barriers are seemingly removed as publishers can charge for exactly what they want to. If you’re a game developer, you can essentially give your game for free, and charge specifically for premium content. If you think about it, for a lot of software, and games in particular, this is a business model that competes directly with pirates. You can’t pirate microtransactions, and if it’s priced competitively, then it can be a winning formula.

Why it could rock

The concept of premium downloadable content isn’t anything new, especially in the video game world, and if you’ve ever bought a song through Rock Band or Guitar Hero, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have been experimenting with premium downloadable content for a a few years now, and by in large, a lot of these companies are their respective third party publishers are getting it.

As an example, imagine playing the Sims. Now your character could walk around theh city, but perhaps you were passionate about a brand like Armani Exchange or American Eagle. Wouldn’t it make sense that you could wear that brand’s clothes in the game? That’s exactly the type of thing you could do. Brands now have yet another point of contact where they could have their products pushed to customers, particularly through video games. It could be premium, so that users have to pay for additional content, or it could even be free, just to promote free WOM advertising. The possibilities and partnerships are, in a sense, limitless.

Why it could suck

I mentioned video games above, and I’ll mention two instances where premium downloadble content has been outright stupid. The first example is what Sony did with their puzzle game Luminos, about two years back. Essentially, what they did was give a broken game, and charge like crazy for additional levels and the content that was originally promised from the initial game purchase. It was horrible, and the company got slammed for those attempts. People expect a deal when shopping for microtransactions.

Just like with that example, the opportunities for publishers to use microtransactions in the wrong way are practically limitless. In oppose to finding opportunities to work with their users, it could easily be an opportunity to exploit companies. A game could be marketed as being cheap, when its true cost could be significantly higher, even by double digit dollars. Not fun.

Closing Thoughts

When I got Rock Band 2 years ago, I actually got a credit card just to purchase some downloadable songs without harassing my brother. Since then, I’ve become a huge supporter of microtransactions when it provides value to its end-users.

I’m glad that Apple’s opening this door that was begging to be opened since the App Store opened. I think it’ll be great for end-users who want to try a developer’s content, while the publisher can use a “free for this part, pay for this other part” business model, which has been proven to be more profitable when compared to traditional models in certain situations.

I think a lot of companies are going to try using microtransactions in their business model, and fail, unless they’ve already experimented with pricing schemes on other videogame platforms. I’ll be curious to see how long it’ll take for companies to “get it” and how soon markters will be able to leverage their brands in new online spaces.

[ Gizmodo - Why iPhone In-App Transactions Could Be a Disaster ]
[ Apple ]

Back in October, the UBC Marketing Association hosted their annual Perfect Pitch ad competition. Every year, they partner up with a local not-for-profit company and host an advertising competition. For the BC SPCA, I was fortunate to be the winner of their 2008-2009 competition, so I figured I would take the time to highlight what my entry was all about.

The Method

There were two main guidelines here. The first was to create a campaign that the BC SPCA could use to promote their Pawsitive Gifts program. The second was that the animals couldn’t be wearing clothes. That’s not a lot to go on.

I started my concept by visiting their website. It’s a really cool concept – you’re essentially buying a donate, but through the form of a “gift” for someone. The gifts aren’t super expensive, and they’re all quite identifiable – Feed a puppy for $5, let a cat stay for $12, etc. From looking at the website, it seemed like you could use this campaign to target pretty much anyone with a little extra income, probably with a bit more of a skew towards women. The key thing about the donation here is that you’re not locked down for a period of time, and it’s not a large sum – there’s really no reason why anyone can’t do this. So the campaign centered around the $5 price point, which is pretty much within anyone’s reach who would be see the message.

The Creation

The campaign started out with a really, really, really cute picture. I found an adorable Garfield and Odie-esque picture of a puppy and a kitten from iStock. A lot of non-profit/donation campaigns tend to use fear and pity to try and provoke action, but unfortunately, a lot of these ads are also filtered out by the people they’re trying to reach. The picture was chosen because it’s something you want to look at. They’re cute, but they’re sad, so you feel pushed to see the rest of the message.

It was originally supposed to be a holiday campaign, so I just the tagline “Happy Holidays?” It’s pretty self-explanatory, that it’s not a happy time for everyone, especially abandoned animals and pets. The catchphrase isn’t anything overly exciting, but it’s enough for you to do a slight double-take to a commonly used phrase.

I used a “before and after” message with the outlined bowl, and the $5 price tag. The visual pushes the message that a $5 donation could help fill up the puppy and kitten’s bowl, both who have a really sad look. It’s a pretty simple idea and execution, but it works.

The copy was one of the few recommendations – a simple plug to the website where a person can go through with the donation.

As a side note, a lot of white spaced was used on purpose. This is designed to be a very simple, easy to absorb message.

Online

For the purposes of this competition, the main criteria was the create a 8.5 x 11 print ad. What I really pushed here was that it needed to go past that, so I mocked up online versions as well. It just makes sense that you’re promoting more online if you want people to impulse-donate. Below you can see how this ad would be tailed for a leaderboard, big box ad, and a Facebook ad as well.

There’s a lot of press right now about the new Facebook design changes, detailing their epic fight against Twitter to become the most relevant social networking platform for big corporations. History has shown us that initially, people are gonna lash out against Facebook about the changes. On the other spectrum, Second Life probably won’t get as much user complaints about a significantly bigger change to their social networking policy: They now plan to separate, identify, and warn about X-Rated Content (read: virtual intercourse)

Change

I’m going to try and write a paragraph about proposed change without mentioning President Obama. Let’s look at what’s happening right now in the social networking world. You’ve got two companies responding to change. Facebook sees that many companies are understanding how to use Twitter for their marketing efforts, and are now turning away from Facebook’s attempt at a solid revenue stream. They’re bringing a new “Twitter-esque” layout, which is sure to aggrevate many of its users. Second Life, a product that blurs the line between an MMO-RPG and a social networking platform, is also responding to an outcry it has had since its inception, which is to moderate and filter adult-rated content.

Why do people yell at Facebook?

In the past, anyone who’s used Facebook has seen the resistance to change. User groups petitioning new changes (for better or for worse), status updates indicate the aggravation, and blog posts about why things were great the way they were. I’ll openly admit that I’ve liked most of the changes for the most part, even if it took me a little while to really “get it.” I won’t argue that the changes have been for better or for worse, but Facebook really needs to work on how they communicate the changes to their community. They’ve started to do that this time around by announcing a “warning” of sorts that things will change, and have explains its new benefits, but that’s about as far as that really goes. Rarely do you see or hear any real engagement from a development standpoint, and the changes always feel forced rather than complementary. With tactics like those, it begs two questions: 1. Does Facebook even are about the user backlash? 2. How could they not see it coming, time and time again?

Why don’t people yell at Second Life?

On their official blog, Second Life has posted about its proposed changes to its platform – namely that they will be filtering adult content. This is a pretty big deal, considering the fact that it’s hard to read any blog post about Second Life, or to even hear a description about it, without the words “sex” and “virtual prostitution” coming up. What’s important though, is why and how they’re making these changes.

The why part comes from their need to expand their audience. While they do have a steady userbase in the millions, their virtual economy is comprised of over $100 million USD. That’s a LOT OF MONEY! But one of their key concerns is the lack of growth in recent quarters, and they realize that they need to get new users. To really push to more businesses and education segments, along with a more “mass-market” flavour, the company has realized that its adult content needs to be filtered out from those who don’t wish to see it. Knowing that this would cause a disruption within their userbase, months before implementation, they’ve decided to outline what they plan to do.

How do you define “Adult Content?”

What’s adult content on Facebook, and in a movie, is greatly different from something that happens in an interactive environment. To tackle the challenge of defining adult content and proposing initiative for filtration, they’ve outlined not only that they plan to work with their community, but have detailed exactly how they plan to do it. You can read the details on their blog post, but the point is – they’re listening to the guys who’ve made them so big in the first place.

Know when to go with the river, and know when to go against

The main takeaway here is that for better or for worse, Second Life is working WITH their users – not against their wishes. Even if they don’t implement anything from their community and just go with their pre-defined idea of what’s right, at least they’re pretending to show that they care, and really, that’s worth a damn. They’re showing that they’re working to preserve their highly profitable revenue channels, increase their userbase, and create an overall better experience. When you look at the backlash of how Facebook users react to even the most trivial changes through the lens of communication, the whole picture becomes a lot more clear.

[ Second Life Blog - Upcoming Changes for Adult Content ]
[ Information Week - Second Life Putting A Leash On Sex, Violence ]
[ Wikipedia - Second Life ]

I’ve been a heavy user of the internet for over 15 years now. I’ve seen the evolution of online advertising from its infancy, and for the most part, it’s almost always sucked. Either it was just obtrusive, trying to get attention at any cost, or worse yet, it looked so exciting that it was too good to be true (and often was). I want to highlight two very excellent examples of what I think are great online banner ads. We’re gonna look at two of my favourite companies in the world – Nintendo and Apple.

Before you read further

This post is absolutely useless if you don’t view these two examples. Do yourself a favour and spare the two minutes: [ Youtube - Wario Land: Shake It! ][ IGN - Apple iPod Touch ]

There's a reason why I didn't embed it - click the picture!

Context is everything

I’m gonna say that both of these ads did a great job of catching my attention, and both of these ads were links that I instantly passed on to my friends. They were just so cool, so different, and while they did steal my attention from the content I was originally looking for, I didn’t care.

Attention is really the driver of these ads. If you look at both examples, the call to action on both messages is pretty simple – they just want you to visit a website. It’s nothing we haven’t seen a billion times before, and I could see a lot of people not clicking through, but being thoroughly entertained by the ads. I really would love more literature as to how these companies measure their results of these things, or more importantly, making the pitch for trying something so costly and unconventional. For the record, if these guys were trying to track me individually, they should know that I didn’t click to see more details on the iPod Touch, nor did I click through to go to Nintendo’s Wario Land microsite, but I still bought both of those products.

A surprise isn’t always a surprise

Nintendo and Apple both have deep pockets, and for the execution of both examples (i.e. very high-traffic websites), it would’ve taken a considerable amount of money compared to a traditional ad placement. I often see the whole “if it worked for them, it’ll work for us!” type of thinking in marketing, so I’m really glad that many other companies won’t be able to afford this. The intrusion would be incredibly annoying if these types of pop-over ads became more mainstream.

Media outlets play ball

What’s interesting to note is that these companies like YouTube, IGN, Imeem, Yahoo!, were all willing to work so closely with guys like Apple and Nintendo. They didn’t just say “Nope, we can’t do that” to the suggestion. It would’ve taken a collaboration of the media outlet’s ad sales team and IT team, and it would’ve taken a significant cheque to make them go the distance. It also makes a bold statement from the media outlet’s stance as they’re basically yelling out, “We’re willing to work with you!” to their advetisers.” It’s interesting to see a giant company like YouTube, which often gets negative industry coverage about their inability to monetize their user-generated content, take a unique approach to delivering a customized advertising solution. You just can’t help but wonder if the future will be home to more more advertising solutions that follow the mass-customization school of thinking. I’d personally love to see what comes out of it, but I would hate to see that company’s rate card.

Thinking outside the box screen

What I like more about Nintendo’s example is that their execution completely connects with the product. The game Wario Land: Shake It is all about playing a Wii game, where one of the core game mechanics requires the player to shake the controller. They were able to capture this energy in perfect context, by having the video shake up and break down the entire YouTube page

It’s interesting to think about the thousands of companies who are trying to have their marketing pieces recognized on YouTube. We’ve seen Coke get right before with their (at the time) online-exclusive GTA parody. I’m sure you can think of some great examples as well. Nintendo (or their creative firm) was really smart here in thinking above and beyond the small little 320 x 240 space, and because of their ability to go against convention (something the company does a great job of btw), they received tons of viral coverage all over the blogs, gaming press, and advertising world. Not to mention the incredible WOM and spread on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

[ Youtube - Wario Land: Shake It! ]
[ IGN - Apple iPod Touch ]

The idea of crowdsourcing is like outsourcing, but with your users. If you’re smart about it, you can leverage your crowd as a significant competitive advantage. I could easily use YouTube as an example of how their audience is a core component of what makes them as big as they are, arguably more so than anything else, but that example is obvious. I want two use two examples that may not be as relevant, and two products that are relatively brand new in their extremely competitive categories: the iPhone, and a game for the Playstation 3 called Little Big Planet.

The iPhone’s Competitive Advantage

I have friends who are cellphone junkies. They always seem to have the latest thing from Japan or Hong Kong, and they’re always showing me how their camera has double digit megapixels, or can play (presumably) HD video. That’s great. Then I’ll ask them if their phone can listen to what’s being played on the radio, and tell me what it’s called, and who’s it by. They’ll say no. Then I’ll show them applications that give me restaurant recommendations, VOIP, local news, movie show times, recipes, my fortune, and even pickup lines. The fact is, their phone can’t do that, and there probably isn’t a single company out there that could even begin to match the number of applications that are available on the iPhone. That says a lot when there are literally hundreds of phones out there, but not one of them begins to give the functionality and utility that the iPhone does. That’s a competitive advantage.

Did Apple create any of these apps? They created 2 that I know of. Did they create an amazing toolkit for developers? Yeah, and they created over 10,000 apps for the iPhone. Many of these a are free, but many of these cost money as well, and considering that Apple’s taking a commission off of each sale, that’s a pretty sweet deal. Not only are they making money by using the apps as a major selling point for prospective buyers, but they’re also making a ton of money on each microtransaction that’s being made.

Little Big Planet

Little Big Planet is essentially a game that allows players to create levels. Imagine playing the original Super Mario Bros., but being able to create a level very easily and quickly, much like the way you can develop a polished piece of video using iMovie. Your idea is everything, and the game gives you that sense of building something, like the first time you played with Lego.

When it launched in November 2008, Little Big Planet was a new intellectual property (IP) from a relatively unknown developer. In the games industry, a new IP that’s system-exclusive is almost destined for failure, especially in the holiday season. But guess what? LBP rocked out. It didn’t achieve the highest sales or anything during Q4, but it was successful by most measures. And more so than many of the other games it competed with at launch, it continues to receives tons of playtime from it growing install base. As of now, there are over 100,000 levels created from it’s user base of over 1.3 million worldwide. With such a large user base that continues to play the game, well past its traditional product life cycle, the company now can leverage more money from their customers by offering additional premium content. It’s smart business, and while I have no idea what their marketing budget was, it seems to be paying off.

Applications

Three (of the MANY) reasons Apple and Sony were successful with crowdsourcing:

TOOLS. With both the iPhone and Little Big Planet, it’s important to see how both platforms had incredibly easy-to-use tools. Programmers were right at home with the iPhone, and anyone who’s ever picked up a videogame controller feels comfortable with LBP.

UTILITY. The utility involved is also instantly provided. With the developers, it’s the ability to monetize their product, or acheive recognition in a very competitive industry. With LBP, the utility is fun and entertainment.

PRE-HYPE. Both of these products also benefited from a considerable amount of pre-hype. Developers had been excited for programming for the iPhone for months, whereas gamers had been pumped for Little Big Planet a year and a half before its release. The prehype was a very large reason why both of these platforms were able to reach critical mass as fast as they did.

Catch a man’s fish, feed him for a day – teach a man to fish, feed him for life.
Teach your users to extend your products, then you’ve got competitive advantage.

Check Out

[ Wired: The Rise of Crowdsourcing ]
[ iPhone - TIME - Top 11 iPhone Applications ]
[ Little Big Planet - 1UP's Favourite User-Generated Levels in LBP ]

I love hearing about stories like these – people faced in ordinary situations, and innovating and out-thinking to solve the problem, rather than throwing hurdles of money at it. Case in point: a Dutch coffee-shop was realizing that people came in to use their internet, rather than purchasing food and drinks – a problem that faces many coffee shops and Internet cafe’s around the world. What’d they do? They decided to change the wireless router every half hour, and named the network with a deal, special, or reminder to purchase food.
Examples – “HaveYouTriedTheCarrotCake?”, “BuyCoffeeForCuteGirlOverThere?“, “TodaysSpecialEspresso1,60Euro”

Not “Conventional” eMarketing, Brilliant Nonetheless

This solution may be overly creative to a lot of people, and I openly give credit where credit is due – this was genius – but it’s important to realize what caused it. It’s a simple case of problem = opportunity. They located the problem, isolated the problem, and found a way to draw conversion. It’s no different than Apple creating iTunes as a result of digital distribution, whether it be the legal or illegal variety. What’s the cost of adding a few routers? In the scheme of things, nothing really – half a dozen at about $100 a pop (since they’re using AirPort Express). It’s a flat fee, but considering they’re offering internet for the whole time they’re open, it’s probably a safe bet to have a few routers lying around anyway. What I’m trying to get at is that for the cost of nothing, they’re able to continuously engage with their customers well passed the initial point of transaction, and can creates another point of communication. If they get to talk to their customers twice, and everyone else talks once, well obviously that talking drives conversion. And if your’e driving up conversion, you’ve just found a competitive advantage.

UNDERSTANDING Customers

What these guys really did a good job of was understanding their customer. I’m not talking about understanding how the customer interacts: i.e. Customer A walks into store, orders, sits, connects online, and stays. They carefully broke each one of those steps down, especially related to the that last problem of the customer staying, and they carefully evaluated EVERY point of contact with the customer. This is way more effective than a cold, sterile sign that says “Customers allowed only 30 minutes of internet time” which gets the customer to leave, but doesn’t attempt to try and gain more value from the people who have already visited their store. You usually see this type of thing translating into very well-executed media plans, but I’m glad to see it applied in such a fresh way.

[ COFFEECOMPANY’S FREE WIFI WOES  -  Creative mobile marketing using network names ]

Porn, Mentos, Twitter, and Fireworks. Need I say more?

Let’s look at this a little more closely.

Problem Solvers love Opportunities

I don’t doubt that the company behind this website, FCV Technologies, sincerely cares about bringing the Celebration of Light back to Vancouver. This is classic case of win/win – FCV gets some extremely positive, low-cost publicity, and in a best case scenario, they’re known as the guys who brought the highlight of the Summer back to Van city.

I admit to being overly critical in the following section, but let me make myself perfectly clear. I think that what these guys are doing is great. Hell, I’m giving them free publicity just by mentioning them. I think it’s fantastic that they’re trying to solicit private donations to support an event that’s so beloved by the city. I don’t outline the reasons of why I don’t believe their project will be successful out of spite, but rather, to help inform and clear the air as to why certain things can work in a certain space, and why they don’t in others.

Fireworks don’t equal Obama

I know that a lot of bloggers, marketers, and even mainstream media outlets were all over how “Social media tools lead Obama to the Presidency.” I think that’s definitely part of the equation, but it’s defintely not the whole thing. I totally give credit where credit is due, and Obama’s team having the Facebook and Twitter on full throttle, in addition to having an incredible community-based website that let users donate with incredible ease, I mean that’s how you get it done. The thing is though, these were just catalysts to an already powerful platform for communication. The fireworks guys are using Web 2.0 alone, not in conjunction to a plethora of offline marketing initatives.

Three external factors as to why this campaign will not pick up the way Obama’s did:

• Fireworks nights are an “impromptu decision.” You might wake up, realize you’re free that night, and go out with a bunch of friends. Few people actually coordinate their feelings to the event months in advance. Political candidates running for the most powerful position in the free world is an important decision that is followed extremely close-up for over a year prior. That demands attention, and that springs people into donating to support their cause. Good luck getting that attention with some bright lights in the sky.
• No Media Exposure. Yeah, there were a few articles written up about the closure, and subsequently SaveTheFireworks.ca when it was originally announced. There was some radio exposure, and even some television exposure, but then what? The fact is, it’s not a political election that generates national (and international) exposure. This is really the exposure that people were paying attention to when they decided that they’d pay attention to the candidates. It wasn’t Twitter, and it wasn’t Facebook. It was a rollercoaster train of hype and excitement that simply cannot be synthesized.
• Where’s the YouTube? It’s pretty simply really, and it breaks down into an easy to understand math equation. No Reverand Dwight + No SNL/Tina Fey skits = No one caring. The fact is, these videos got millions upon millions of viewers on both television and especially online. That’s exposure that you can’t even dream of, and that’s the stuff that gets people excited and motivated to action. When you hear Obama’s convcing statements, you’re pushed to donate. You could probably throw up a few videos of fireworks and whatnot, but honestly, you just can’t replicate the live experience.

FCV scores Big Time!

Based on everything I outlined, and looking at how much money that these guys have raised far, I don’t think that these guys will achieve their goals. Call it pessimistic, but I think that they’re missing too  many parts of the big equation in order for this to work out in everyone’s favour. I think that at the very least, there will be a substantial donation for the 2010 fireworks special.

I mentioned above that it’s a win/win situation. The fact is, FCV  has already won. If they’re successful, they’re known as the company that did the impossible. If they’re not successful, then they’re known as the company that tried for it, but it was beyond their scope. The bottom line is that they’ve generated tremendous amonts of positive WOM about these guys, and that is executed extremely well.

Often, I’ll see an article about how Twitter’s the next big thing. Then I’ll realize it’s from a marketing blog. Then I’ll see another article… and realize that too is from a marketing blog. I swear, Twitter is a great tool for businesses and marketing/business types, but I don’t think that the average person clearly sees how it’s any different from a Facebook status message. For the first few weeks I had Twitter, I was convinced that I’ll probably stop using it in about 2 weeks… now I’m not so sure.

An Advertising Space?

I think one of the key things here is that on the Twitter space, I have absolutely no problem getting info and feeds from businesses, organizations, or my peers. I’ll rarely ever click on a Facebook ad, but I won’t think twice about following a Twitter link. I think that’s the difference. I mean I have no idea how Twitter makes money (or rather, how they operate without making money…) but if a company like Dell can score over a million dollars in sales from its Twitter traffic over the course of a year and a half, well… that effectively puts an end to the naysayers in my opinion. If they can do something awesome with Twitter, why can’t everyone else?

NBC made Twitter awesome for me

So, what made me really like Twitter was what NBC did. On a Thursday night not so far ago, I just randomly posted about how I was excited for that night’s episodes of The Office and 30 Rock. Later on in the day, I got a message from a “character” in 30 Rock. I was very, very impressed. Obviously it was from NBC, and more than likely it wasn’t the actor himself, but I was still blown away by the fact that they were actively searching for members in their community, and that they added me. It cost them nothing, and even though I would’ve probably done it anyway, I am now committed to being a lifelong fan of 30 Rock. It’s cost-effective customer retention at its finest.

Having Twitter also rocks for keeping up to date with shows. I have The Office on my Twitter, and they do a tremendous job of hooking up followers with exclusive Office web content. Behind the scenes interviews, episode previews, you name it. Again, another excellent customer rentention strategy has been put in place for the cost of nothing. I love having the feeling of being connected directly to the geniuses behind The Office. Oh and fyi, they’ve started using the 30 Rock strategy of getting a “character” to update.

What I’m trying to get at here, is that even though it’s simply micro-blogging, using it effectively can help create community in a forum that’s inviting to users. Users are actually wanting to pull content from companies, which is the exact opposite of what’s going on in the world we call Facebook.

What’s the takeaway?

I’d be stating the obvious if I said that a company shouldn’t just jump on the Twitter bandwagon. If it doesn’t make sense, then there’s no point. If you’re barely updating, or not following your followers, or you don’t have a clear strategy in place as to how you’ll use it, then I think it’s just a stumbling ground where you’ll get lost in the shuffle.

The organizations that have had real demonstrated success seem to be actively engaging opportunity for interacting with its fans, users, customers, followers, whatever you want to call them. They try and show transparency, connectivity, and understanding. They don’t have to update daily, or even often, but they need to be impactful, and enough so that it appears amongst a followers tweets enough so that there’s some sense of a recency effect. There aren’t any real rules or anything, and I’m not prepared to state what any “rules” are for making a good Twitter account. All I can really take away from my observations is that is that if you plan to embrace it, make sure you go all with whatever your angle is – creativity, personalization, news, events, transparency, etc. – in if you want any results.

Some Good Examples -

Myself – enishiate
GuyKawasaki
KennethThePage
IAmKellyFierce
TheOfficeNBC
UBCSauderSchool
DavidSuzukiFDN

There are two commercials that are both really stupid, and really effective. The first is the old school Mentos commercials that I’m such a huge fan of. I think they’re so funny, so stupid, and I’d almost look forward to seeing them on TV just to have a guaranteed laugh. The second example is a commercial for Frank’s Red Hot Sauce. I hate this commercial. It’s stupid, grotesque, and it makes me vomit. The weird thing is though, I almost always have both a pack of Mentos and a bottle of Frank’s Red Hot Sauce in my house. I wonder why that is.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

The commercials are both pretty funny, to me at least, and have something in common: they’re both really, really, really stupid. Now the thing is, there’s no science to judging whether the commercial’s good or not, and I don’t have any performance-based metrics off the top of my head, but if it worked on me, then at the very least, it worked on one person.

The Freshmaker

Mentos ran a good series of these ads a while ago, which are drastically different from the ads they’ve ran in recent years. When I saw these ads, I wasn’t at a stage in my life where I had that much disposable income, so it never caused a direct purchase for me. In fact, it wasn’t until years after they ran that campaign where I actually saw Mentos distributed in the supermarkets that I shopped at. I remember buying one for the first time, instantly thinking about the commercial when I saw the logo. I didn’t expect that the bad part of my day would be instantly resolved by popping a mentos in my mouth, but I was quite surprised that such a stupid commercial worked on me. It was different, so it really got my attention, and for it to have had such a long lasting experience on me, it obviously did both a great job of creating brand preference and brand loyalty within me. These guys nailed it.

A Thrill a Bite

I think the true beauty of the Frank’s Red Hot Sauce one is that I’m not even a hot sauce fan. In fact, I really don’t like hot sauce on about 95% of the things that I eat. But off the top of my head, I can’t actually think of any other hot sauce brands, and if anyone was to ever ask me what’s a good hot sauce, I would for whatever reason recommend Frank’s Red Hot. It might be because of the fact that hot sauce in particular is a relatively low-advertised category, but I have to give credit where credit’s due – This grabbed my attention, it made me aware of the brand, and it actually, for whatever reason, created a bit of brand loyalty within me to their product. If that’s not a win, I don’t know what is, and that’s probably why they’re still using this campaign.

Stupid Isn’t Always as Stupid Does

Where am I going with this? I’m not referring to either of these campaigns as dumb, in fact, I’m stating why these are actually really well-run campaigns in my opinion. Also, I don’t mean that these campaigns are stupid in a negative sense. I think they’re stupid in a funny sense, which creates a point of differentiation in these respective brands’ advertising. Neither brand decided to go after taste, or value, or any other rational claim. They both foused heavily on emotional selling propositions, and have a result done a much better job at developing the brand personality, and creating brand loyalty in way that’s more effective than many of their other competitors. Executing something that effective isn’t stupid at all – it’s brilliant.