If you ran a company (Chevrolet) that produced cars that no one wanted (Tahoe) would you ask the world to write their own TV commercial?
Would you still have a old-school Detroit advertising agency (I won’t name them) that followed the current “hot new idea” of having regular people go to websites to create their very own commercials?
I realize that citizen media comes with self-impossed fears and challenges but when your brand is becomming a whipping boy, maybe it isn’t such a good idea to hand out the whips.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:15 am
C’mon, Peter, are you telling us that you didn’t spend just a few minutes putting all the pieces together? Granted, it’s stock footage and music, but it’s still kinda fun. Besides, what else do the guys at Chevy have to do other than look at all of our amateur commercials?
April 5th, 2006 at 10:47 am
I’m surprised you didn’t mention the huge media flap this has become after thousands of anti-SUV commercials were made with themes like global warming and individual responsibility. This has been a PR nightmare for GM.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:09 am
Pedro, I must disagree.
On the web, if you are going to experiment with social media, you either go all the way, or you don’t do it at all.
Chevy targets mainstream audiences, and this is a mainstream (internet) campaign. There is also an incredible value to the publicity associated with all of it. After all, we’re talking about them and not some other SUV.
Ed Peper wrote on his GM Fastlane blog that “early on we made the decision that if we were to hold this contest, in which we invite anyone to create an ad, in an open forum, that we would be summarily destroyed in the blogosphere if we censored the ads based on their viewpoint. So, we adopted a position of openness and transparency, and decided that we would welcome the debate.”
Bravo.
I still think the Tahoe is a gas guzzling piece of tin, but I give them kudos for having guts and understand the nature of social computing.
For those who have seen the site and are in the market for a monsterous ride like the Tahoe, I’m sure this campaign reflects positively on Chevy’s brand.
Over at Forrester, Charlene Li writes, “if you’re going to participate as a marketer in the social computing arena, you’ve got to have thick skin and be ready to engage in the messy world of your customer’s opinions. Marketers that have the guts to turn over their brand to the public will in the end win over their customers.”
She’s spot-on.
Another example of letting consumers create commercials is the Converse Gallery.
http://www.conversegallery.com/
Instead of letting anyone create/post an ad, they limit participation to a select group of pros and insiders. That strategy fits Converse well (ouch, bad pun), as they’re targeting a niche audience.
As a result, their spots are of much highter quality (great stuff, actually), but the participatory nature of the project is not as strong and thus the strenght of social networking is decreased.
There will be a lot more of this, and unless you want more old-school advertising agencies beating you to the punch, you might want to consider how you’re going to deal with it.
Good luck,
~G~
April 10th, 2006 at 9:12 am
There is a difference between being “ready to engage in the messy world of your customer’s opinions” and having a large and organized negative campaign targeted against you that reaches the mainstream media. Yesterday, the guys at car talk even played one of the ads and read every frame to the audience.
I think you underestimate most consumers need to fit into a certain lifestyle image. If consumers percieve that everyone will be sneering at them for driving a Tahoe, many are going to make another choice.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Aaron,
The fact that there is a “large and organized negative campaign” is testament to the fact that GM products are (as Scott Karp puts it) fossilizing dinosaurs, and not because they took an innovative approach to marketing online.
GM decided to be transparent and let people create and discuss things, and I think that’s a bold move. Top-down marketing is dead, especially online, and the sooner brands and agencies realize this, the better off they will be.
In the end, however, no amount of marketing can save you from a bad product. The sneers that people give you are coming from the fact that you drive a Tahoe in the first place.
~G~
April 12th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
While I totally understand where Aaron is coming from, the fact that GM has had a chance to experience this dialogue could well be the spark that helps it change its ways. Short-term: bad for Tahoe sales. Long-term: good for GM, maybe. I agree it was bold, and it sure beats the “let’s sit on our hands” approach that Ford and Chrysler are using. This is positive.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Hi folks (and George, how ya been?),
Peter sent me this link and as I just wrote a column on this, read the above with interest. I just think that you have to balance what brands are appropriate for social media, taking into account of course, that anyone at any time can slag your brand. But whatever, the Chevy Tahoe ain’t it. Sorry the link to the column isn’t free to non-Adweek subscribers, but here’s the truncated version of my thoughts at adfreak.
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2006/04/why_did_chevrol.html
I guess I just fail to understand the compulsion to engage in social media. It’s not for everyone, unless the ANA wrote it into their bylaws that every brand must participate. Kidding.
CPT
April 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 am
Hi,
I don’t see why a campaign for the Chevy Tahoe is an inappropriate use of social media. I’m critical of *how* they did it, not *why* they did it. See my post above.
There are very passionate SUV owners out there - some of whom own a Chevy Tahoe - and there is no reason why social media can not be used effectively to market to them.
Was Burger King wrong to use social media (in the form of viral marketing) when it launched the Subsurvient Chicken? Surely, there must be some anti fast food folks out there other than Morgan Spurlock to rise up and complain. Hell, even PETA could have taken issue with it, and they’re mighty vocal. Should BK have balked?
Was it inappropriate for Converse to launch the Converse Gallery? Who knows where their shoes are made, how much their labor costs, and what the working conditions are like? Should they fear the same backlash?
What about Nike’s Joga Bonita campaign? It is a MySpace-like open community for people to talk about football (soccer), but they’re not afraid of potential problems. They even have a Frenchman as a lead character. Mon dieu. Quel scandal!
The list is long …
Sure, controvertial topics/brands bring out people who “slag your brand,” but it often brings out “silent advocates” who often counter those attacks.
What is obvious is that GM is experimenting with social media, and while they won’t get everything right they should be applauded for their efforts. The FastLane blog, the Apprentice site, and now their new FYI Blog (a participatory blog for all GM employees) send a clear signal.
Instead keeping conversations behind closed doors (or inside paid sites like Adweek), GM knows that there is value in open spaces. Half kidding.
Cathy, I’m in London (have been back in Europe the past 4 years) and would love to hear from you. george at i-boy dot com.
~G~