Viral Marketing

Bayer has just launched a viral marketing campaign for its Aleve pain reliever. From the NY Times, July 12: 

"By visiting a Web site, www.aleviator.com, Internet users will be able to follow a fictional storyline that leads them through a series of clues, taking them in and out of social networking sites, wikis and blogs.

For each person who clicks through to the end of the game, which takes at least a minute, Bayer will make a donation of $5 to $10 to the Conservation Fund, an environmental nonprofit group. The campaign will last a month.

The gimmick is intended to get people in the 25-to-49 age group to notice Aleve, a pain medicine that was introduced 13 years ago and is used mostly by people over 50 to relieve symptoms typically associated with aging, like arthritis and back pain."

So, given that I am both a marketer very interested in these sorts of campaigns and an Internet user in the target age range, I thought I’d check it out.

Prediction: the campaign will spread and people will click through to the end because Internet users will be motivated by the charity donation. Even though Bayer doesn’t advertise the donation upfront on the aleviator site, let’s face it, everyone who spreads the word will be prefacing it with the information. And knowing that outcome is going to be what keeps people looking for the links to move forward.

At least that was what kept me moving forward. The story itself was kinda hokey; it was trying so hard to be hip and funny, and ended up not so much of either. While it clearly wanted more engagement that I was willing to give it, it didn’t give me a good reason to bother reading or viewing more material. I just looked around for the obvious next link in the chain and clicked.

It wasn’t that it was bad. It just wasn’t that interesting. For me, the payoff is the donation. As it will be for many.

That said, I wouldn’t call this a failure. It will be interesting to see the sales results for Aleve in the target population after the campaign. Even if people (like me) click through as fast as they can, it doesn’t mean they won’t think more positively about Aleve and perhaps consider purchasing it.  

Because that is the measure of success. Not how many people view the campaign. Not how much is donated to the charity, although it is an excellent by-product. How many people actually buy the product.

A lesson learned the hard way by many. Like Miller last spring, whose beer cannon campaign was a viral success and a sales flop. As reported in CNN Money:

MISS] No accounting for taste. In the midst of today’s viral-marketing epidemic, it’s worth noting that funny videos don’t always circle back around to the bottom line. That’s a lesson Miller Brewing learned the hard way with the "beer cannon" campaign it produced for its Milwaukee’s Best brand. Though the videos–featuring cans turned into projectiles and blowing away unmanly items like stacked teacups and ceramic kitty cats–have been viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube, they haven’t had much impact at retail. In fact, despite the direct hit with its target audience, Milwaukee’s Best sales fell 11 percent from the previous year.

Let’s hope Aleve can avoid that headache….

Disclosure: I already occasionally use Aleve when I have a particularly nasty headache.

Tags: Aleve, pharma, Bayer, viral marketing, word-of-mouth

Tip of the hat to Sandy for sending me The Great Turtle Race. This campaign, which supports efforts to protect the endangered leatherback turtle, chronicles the turtles’ annual migration from Costa Rica to the Galapagos Islands.

Remember the five Cs of viral marketing? The Great Turtle Race hits on all five. It has the cornerstone pieces of a compelling message, the cause to save the turtles, and an engaged community. And then they successfully weave together the three elements that make viral marketing buzz: contest, comedy and  charity.

Contest: the migration is cast as a race, and you can follow your chosen turtle. They’ll even email you updates. Go Genevieve!

Comedy: Amusing profiles of the turtles, "live action" commentary and leaderboard with host Mr. Leatherback. The turtles even have MySpace pages.

Charity: There’s plenty of information about the cause on the site, at all levels, kids to adult, and an easy way to donate. Why wouldn’t you?

All in all, a great viral marketing effort. Kudos to all involved.

Go Genevieve!

Tags: great turtle race, leatherback, leatherback turtle, viral marketing

"We understand now that in today’s post-Sept. 11 environment, it was reasonable and appropriate for citizens and law enforcement officials to take any perceived threat posed by our light boards very seriously and to respond as they did." – Turner Broadcasting Statement

Katie Paine has a post this morning summing up the resolution of the whole Turner/Interference/Aqua Teen mess as "Boston 2 Aqua Teen 1 Turner 0"  — Boston gets $2million in the settlement from Turner and Interference, more people have heard of the show, and Turner will come out fine.She’s less sure about Interference, the agency that came up with the idea, but she thinks even they might come out okay in the end.

I agree with her assessment, but am still bothered by the ethics of the whole thing. If the goal of the campaign was to expose more people to the TV show, it had not achieved the objective until the "explosion" last Wednesday. From what I have been able to tell, folks certainly saw the critters in Boston and the other cities, but it sounds like many were taken as souvenirs. Hard to spread the word about something if people are taking the adverts back to their dorm rooms. In fact, if the goal was to reach out to the natural audience for the show, those that already recognized the character, then the logical place to put the devices would have been colleges, universities and so forth.

Not I-93. Yet, the agency specified just those sort of places — overpasses, bridges and the like. Why? Was it simply because those were visible spots, or did they perhaps have a clue of what MIGHT happen if a device was placed on a key and highly visible piece of transportation infrastructure? Or were they just stupid? We will never know for certain.

We also can’t really be sure if the agency realized what was going on in the early afternoon on Wednesday and told the performance artists who placed the signs to keep quiet. Waiting about 3 hours before informing the authorities. The young men and their friends say yes. The agency denies. At this point it doesn’t really matter.

What we do know is that the first device reported and detonated Wednesday morning was placed on Monday night, not three weeks ago. And we know that it took a public emergency in Boston for the word to start spreading.

Posts mentioning "aqua teen"

We know, or we should, that it was much better for the authorities to respond as they did, than it would have been to ignore a potentially dangerous situation. Hard as it is for me to read about  the comics making fun of Boston, I’d much rather be hearing that than reading about the deaths caused from a bomb exploding in a subway or train station. It happens.  Madrid 2004 and London 2005. Tom Menino may go over the top, but it doesn’t make the marketing campaign itself any less irresponsible.

That’s the ethical issue: what is the responsibility of a marketer to understand the potential effects of the campaign. Not just the goal we set, but the unintended consequences. Where do we draw the line between the responsibility of the marketer to understand and avoid negative effects, and the fact that the response to a marketing campaign is really out of our control. We tell a story and hope it gets the response or action we intended. But there are no guarantees, and the people have all the real control. We just think we do 🙂

In the case of Aqua Teen,  Turner and Interference should have known better. Even many folks who make fun of Boston for the level of response admit that.

If we want to be responsible marketers, we need to fully understand how our products and campaigns will affect the people exposed to them. If our campaigns will be seen by more than the intended or natural audience, we had better be sure that we are communicating clearly. It isn’t sufficient to say, well they just don’t get it, or that isn’t really for them, or whatever the excuse, if there is a potential for harm.

I leave you with the irony. Although there’s a lot of Aqua Teen buzz these days, the Globe reports:

"Though the Cartoon Network received considerable attention after the scare, there appears to have been no short-term payoff. Viewership for the first "Aqua Teen" episode to air after the incident was down 100,000 viewers, compared to the night before, then only rebounded to its average rating the following night, according to Nielsen Media Research, which monitors television viewership."

CODA (added Feb 11): Head of Cartoon Network resigns over Aqua Teen mess. (sources: Boston Globe print edition and John Cass)

Tags: boston bomb scare, Turner Broadcasting, Aqua Teen, guerilla marketing, viral marketing, Cartoon Network

Placing electronic devices with magnetic lights under bridges and overpasses  is probably not the brightest marketing move, wouldn’t you say? Well, apparently the Turner Broadcasting Network (Time Warner) thought differently. They did just that as a national promotion for one of their Cartoon Network adult cartoons.

As a friend emailed me this afternoon, if they gave a Darwin Award for marketing, these guys would get it.

What WERE they thinking? Ooops. I guess they weren’t.

At least nine different suspicious packages placed throughout Boston, including the first one that was detonated near I-93 this morning, caused the shutdown of the city’s major roadways and subway lines. Emergency responders, bomb squad, police, you name it, were called to respond to this potential disaster. Only to learn that it was a network stunt….

Apparently, similar devices have been placed in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Austin, Texas, and they’ve been there for about three weeks. I’m not going to get into why they haven’t been discovered before today, but I am at a loss to explain why the TV network thought this was a good idea.

We have to take our shoes off to go through airport metal detectors and can’t bring water from home on the plane. And they thought it was a good idea to put suspicious looking boxes near bridges, waterways, overpasses and medical centers?

I would not be surprised if the State of Massachusetts sued to recover costs. Not to mention possible criminal charges. From Governor Deval Patrick’s statement:

"I am deeply dismayed to learn that many of the devices are a part of a marketing campaign by Turner Broadcasting. This stunt has caused considerable disruption and anxiety in our community. I understand that Turner Broadcasting has purported to apologize for this. I intend nonetheless to consult with the attorney general and other advisors about what recourse we may have."

Folks, this isn’t viral marketing. It is just sick.

Coverage: MarketWatch, Reuters

UPDATE Feb 1, 10:15pm: Lots of commentary on this subject today. I thought about doing another post but decided to just tack it on here. Check out John Cass, KD Paine and Todd Defren for further local perspective.

From this article (thanks Katie), apparently Interference, the agency who planned the campaign, was aware of the situation by the early afternoon, yet Turner did not contact the authorities until 4:30pm.  That’s a big window of time and angst for the residents of Boston. Article also answers the question about why it took so long for someone to spot these "devices." Apparently the one that set the police response off — underneath Interstate 93 in Sullivan Square in Charlestown — wasn’t placed until overnight Monday, which is only a day in place before being reported, not 2-3 weeks.

There is now an apology on the Interference Web site; no idea when it went up. Too little too late?

More to come on this very interesting viral marketing story.

Update February 2, 8:10pm – Article in this morning’s Globe indicates that in 6 of the 9 other cities, the devices weren’t in transportation "danger zones." And even with the list of where the things should be, the authorities can’t find most of them, unless they look on eBay I suppose.

I also want to make a general comment to the folks who are making fun of the Boston reaction as over the top. It is very important to not confuse the issues. Just because Mayor Menino has a tendency to chew scenery and over-react, does NOT make the actions of the marketers behind this mess any less irresponsible. Or the response of the law enforcement officials wrong. They did what they are supposed to do. Just because one device was harmless does not make the next one harmless. Until you know where they are from, everything is suspicious. Harmless looking things can be dangerous. Terrorists have been putting bombs in dolls and balls longer than I can remember.

More reaction: David Parmet, the Net Savvy Executive

Tags: Boston bomb scare, viral marketing, Time Warner, Turner Broadcasting Network, Cartoon Network