Marketing virally is a slippery slope, and invariably it's those that have no inclination towards creating something viral that experience the success that the "professionals" so strive for. When Microsoft announced they were spending $300,000,000 to create a campaign with a centrepoint series of ads with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld it was obvious there was hope the bloggers would blog, the Twitters would tweet, and perhaps, YouTube would help Microsoft become the next 'Dramatic Chipmunk'. But, somewhere along the way to untold riches, something happened.
The Gates/Seinfeld ads were almost universally panned by experts and amateurs alike. Did you miss them? There were only two, and they didn't last long: The first ad was titled Shoe Circus, the second New Family. Faced with this seemingly universal dislike Microsoft quickly yanked the ads - claiming they were only teasers all along - and launched into a new set of ads titled "I'm a PC", obviously a direct salvo towards the famous Mac ads. However, this AdAge article points out a very interesting statistic regarding the campaign's viral views:
Visible Measures points out that while the Seinfeld/Gates clips came out two weeks earlier than the "I'm a PC" ads, Seinfeld/Gates drew twice as many viewers their first week in market than the PC ads did. After two weeks in market, Visible Measures says, "Seinfeld/Gates was still collecting more than 700,000 views per day, while the 'I'm a PC' clips had tapered off to less than 50,000 views per day."
What are your thoughts on the link between online buzz and viral success? Is it enough for your brand to be talked about, regardless of the good/bad nature of that conversation? Is 'Gates/Seinfeld' a success, against everything we've read and been led to believe? Tell us your thoughts in comments.
At Microsoft, we're motivated and inspired every day by how our customers use our software to find creative solutions to business problems, develop... [more]
It's not just about how many people view an ad. It's the audience take-away. If you reach 700,000 people with a message that says that "Microsoft is stodgy and out-of-touch" then the ad is clearly not effective. Based on what the bloggerati and marketing pros are saying, I would suggest that the ad campaign is a failure based on the message it delivers. The fact that it's reaching so many people with that negative message means it's a spectacular failure.
This really comes down to the old "there's no such thing as bad publicity" argument: was the campaign a success just because everyone is talking about them?
The fact that the "I'm A PC" ads only drew half the audience as the Seinfeld/Gates ads suggest that the world would rather gawk at Microsoft's epic marketing failure than learn more about the qualities the "I'm A PC" ads tout of Microsoft itself.
In this case, is there such a thing as bad publicity? The answer would be yes.
