Here’s your big chance to be an amateur!
It’s quite simple, and it doesn’t take any talent. Simply post your comments to AgencyIdol.com on what you think about this whole newfangled “consumer generated content” thang. I promise, you won’t be alone. At this writing, it’s reported that three different clients—Chevrolet, the NFL, and Doritos—are turning over the creation of their Super Bowl commercials to the public. Hence, my question du jour for all you aspiring bloggers: Will those three clients get their money’s worth?
Post a Comment
17 comments:
In my opinion, consumer generated content is here to stay. Consumer generated ads are just a fad--a cheap way to get some quick PR and "free" freelance. In today's world of empowered consumers, what we need to do is to get people to interact with the brand and feel a sense of ownership... express their passion for the brand and the role in their lives... not try to sell the brand in a traditional 30 second spot. Will they get their money's worth... a bit more short term talk value but not long term brand affinity or sales.
In it's most basic form, generating content is something that comes natural to consumers (translation: "humans") when those consumers are passionate or overcome by an urge to be heard (perhaps that motivation is financial, artistic, or political). Users/readers/consumers have been providing free content to publications and businesses for decades (editorial comments in newspapers and magazines and, more recently, product reviews, comments, etc on websites like Amazon). The most recent classification of this term is used more as a buzz word, having caught on among the general ranks of ad execs shifting the emphasis towards a sellable commodity for the next client meeting (i.e. it's called "user generated content" online or away from the brand space, but "consumer generated content" in the board room or around ad execs). Unfortunately, when censored by brands, the true nature or value of providing a forum for people to contribute content can become stunted. When completely open to the masses, the opposite effect can occur in that you are left with a giant dumpster of submitted comments, videos, pictures, etc. I think the brands and publications that can best navigate the middle ground... Not opening the doors to massive amounts of garbage nor exercising excessive censorship and corporate selection... will find themselves in the best position to benefit from consumers generating content.
In the case of the three brands attempting to create such a forum for Super Bowl ad submissions, it will help if the consumers are passionate... either about the brand or about something else. So far, in the videos I've seen, it seems as though the brands are getting some fresh thinking from some passionate individuals. While, most certainly, the motivating factor behind each submission may not be for love of the brand, marketers can only hope that the resulting product will translate into some passion for the brand on a mass scale. Chevy has already seen plenty of video's from consumers who remain motivated by their negative passions for a brand... http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.12/tahoe.html
Does anyone "get their money's worth" during the Super Bowl with those outrageous media costs? Despite that, think what a 30-second spot costs to produce thes days. I'd put my money (about 90% less than the ususal wad) on a consumer-generated spot any day. It's fresh. It's so NOW. And it makes my job a ton easier.
Do we really think they are going to sell more cars, or more Doritos if the Super Bowl ad is created by a consumer or is it just a PR lazy strategy?
We all know that we buy brands that we care about and that we like. A consumer generated spot in the Super Bowl for a car is not going to make me buy the car. I don't think it will make me like the brand either unless the consumer idea is the start of a new campaign. I buy brands that have a history with me and if the story they are featuring in the billion dollar spot is not connecting with what that brand stands up for me, it doesn’t make any sense to buy it.
I am tired of Brand managers turning over the brand to the consumer. I think it is lazy of them and the easiest way around a trend. I also think it is passé. Creating content or advertising without any frame of reference is not worth it. Asking for consumers to interact and “touch” the brand has value. Two very different concepts.
Lets be real, there will never be true consumer generated advertising long as the buying media is part of the deal. Now put a "super" price tag on it and what brand would really turn that over to a consumer? Are consumers truly generating this stuff or is it just a way for brands to get free ideas from other sources (imagine that), and get attention for doing it (for now)? Real consumer generated media should be unprovoked to be honest and unfiltered to be real!
What can you really say about UGC. It is here to stay, it is what is going to eventually drive what people want now and into the not so distant future. Just look at itv in the UK and to an extent to other parts around the world. We are really seeing custom content in one way or another.
I think that if we could see more moderated UGC comeing out of more interesting mediums other than tv, then I definately think that we could use it as a tool to really find out what people want out of life. Whether they are happy to sit and run their lives out of a screen or not! Which do you choose?
Of course. The winners get nothing for their ideas, which is the backbone for creative ad agencies. So the advertisers are basically getting all ideas for nothing.
Can't get a better ROI than that.
When you people in Advertising are really earning your money you are swimming in the confluence of Art and Science. Barring an occasional happy accident it takes both to motivate large numbers of people to buy. What you are likely to get by bringing in the consultative powers of the many-headed throng is a boatload of clever ideas. There is some value in this, and some of their ideas will be good enough to provide 30 seconds of entertainment and brief but brilliant trajectory on YouTube. It is unlikely that anything thus created will change the sales picture for your clients in any significant way. Not like the "You deserve a break today" campaign or the PC vs. Mac campaign, to choose a more current example. Have you guys lost sight of your own value? Every kid in middle school has the technology in his pocket to make a 30 second video and some of them can be worth seeing. None of these kids is qualified to replace you. Same goes for their Dads with more expensive equipment. Yes, some of you have done some truly awful work, but here's the truth: You are in a better position to understand how to make money for your clients than is even the most passionate amateur. So don't give up your role...do a better job!
CGC can be an interesting and dynamic way to engage and connect with your target consumer. however, leaving your mulit-milion dollar ad campaign in the hands of the consumer is just another way to get PR (it could be done a lot cheaper than the cost of the SB spot and production). And is that the intent of advertising?, or is it to build brand affinity (some could argue that CGC is building brand affinity) and sell your product. On the otherhand maybe it is promotion that really sells the product and if done with the intent can build the brand as well. Sadly Ad Agencies and Brands don't always get this point.
Someone once asked "Your advertising is great, but how's business?
Great dialogue particularly as the consumer generated content movement continues into 07. Was also a key topic at the NATPE convention last week in Las Vegas (as featured by AdAge.com) - and thought Alan Rockerfield from Unilever had a good perspective....allow consumers to take part in the co-creation (in an authentic way) but we should look at ways to contain it positively so it compliments the brand strategy. Giving it up completely especially when you have a vision of the brand - doesnt seem like the right long-term position - but it certainly creates good PR (mind you - the qualifications on submitting a consumer commercial were pretty stringent already). In the case of Doritos and Chevy, I like the "call for ads" idea....they have/will get good buzz for this (and a couple of the spots are suprisingly good) - that's what you need around a huge event like Superbowl.
Maybe the area to focus on long-term is creating "forums" for consumers to create content (not just ads). Frame it against the brand and ask people to create within that....not only will you get fresh thinking - it's open dialogue with consumers that hopefully you turn into evangelists.
Consumer generated content is the outgrowth of controversy, both forms provide the anti culture to the status quo of ads. Are they noticed, yes, do they spark conversation, absolutely, do they get attention and are they remembered? Yes. Anything else is just normal advertising.
Companies participating in consumer-generated content draw their current audience into the brand a little further before the big game. Does this tactic actually increase the viewing audience when the commercials air—probably not. If the commercial, consumer-generated or not, is good enough—people will talk about it and word-of-mouth advertising is priceless. Don’t we all watch the Super Bowl for the commercials anyhow?
I don't buy that these are user generated ads even if they make them 35 secs long to try and convunce you they are.I am quite sure real users would come up with a more interesting way of demonstrating their affinity for the brand.Your strategy is showing!!!
Thought the Chevy ads were not very good. The Doritos ad was somewhat interesting. In general, I would agree that consumer-generated ads are a bit of a fad. However, consumer take-over of brands is just beginning. This will continue to increase, especially in the online community.
I thought the concept of the winning Chevrolet ad revolved around someone licking a car and getting their tounge stuck a.la. every kid who grew up in the upper midwest either knows someone or is that someone who has gotten their tounge stuck to a [flagpole|fence|swingset]. How did that committee-ised morph into ugly men taking off shirts to wash a Chevy full of girls. Today everyone talks about the snickers commerical. It could have been the tounge stuck to the chevy commercial.
I think that UGC is the wave of the future for advertising. If you look at primetime TV you keep seeing the same commercial over and over WHY??? My thought is that corporations are looking at better ways of advertising and that brings them to the WEB 2.0 concept and UGC. Lots of great companies out their; came across HGTV which was created by a company named Neighborhood America.
It's all a hustle. Companies and agencies with a product to sell, and consumers as the primary target. That's always been the case, only now consumers are savvy enough to spot it so most of these messages are completely ignored. So as consumers continue to be underwhelmed by traditional advertising angles, some advertisers are reallocating resources to create "spaces" for their clients to talk. How cool is it for a full page ad to be nothing more than a place for current customers to rant to potential customers about the said product's attributes. Ironically, this blog is like that. Bravo to TMS for the effort. Not many responses, but a start.
Post a Comment