Doritos is running a series of TVCs in Australia to induce some User-Generated Content (UGC):
I suggest that there are two types of UGC – Natural & Induced. Natural UGC is the spontaneous user response to a product or service that they love. This is the best form of UGC because:
Passionate users do what they do for the sheer joy of being associated with the brand, particularly if the brand publicly acknowledges them – consider the iPod touch or Star Wars.
Creators of Natural UGC are users who selflessly share their love for a product are entirely credible while advertisers are not.
By comparison, Induced UGC is what’s generated when companies seek UGC by offering inducements – prizes or offers of recognition. Given the benefits of Natural UGC, it’s clear to see why Induced UGC’s of interest to a corporation – it also allows for a sense of involvement, connection and collaboration between brand and user. There are problems, however with Induced UGC:
Credibility is lost the instant you offer a reward – love and money don’t mix well.
“Sheer joy” simply doesn’t apply to most products, in which case an Induced UGC campaign is probably a meatball sundae. (The solution isn’t to reverse engineer passion for your existing brand and products, it’s to make your brand and products worth being passionate about.)
Most Induced UGC campaigns attempt to have two bites of the cherry:
1) kudos from everyone (users and non-users) for running the campaign/competition, and?
2) kudos from the UGC generated.
I suspect that many campaigns would have more impact if the campaign was run privately with their tribe of customers and non-customers saw only the end result, the UGC?that invites them to join the tribe as well.
As for this Australian Doritos UGC campaign, I’m concerned that it’s likely to detract from the brand:
If marketers sell stories, selling the story of “we can’t think of a reason to buy Doritos – can you help us?” is dangerously poor. If Doritos marketers have identified that their 16-24 year old demographic wants ‘belongingness’, this is a call to belong to … nothing.
The all-too-common ad storyline of ‘ad people making an ad’ is self-indulgent – advertising creatives need to create stories that prospective customers relate to, not ones that remind them of bad days at the office. At the very least they could have made a TVC about teenagers making their own Doritos ad, selling both the competition and the bigger Doritos story in one hit.
Together this might explain why the Doritos UGC campaign is on TV -?you can buy TV time whereas on the internet (where 16-24 year olds are) you need to earn it (and you have to do a lot better than this).
No doubt this campaign is an attempt to replicate the response to the US Crash the Super Bowl
Doritos campaign which this year promised “win $1 Million by taking down the ad pros with a Super Bowl commercial written, directed, and made by you”. It’s an audacious competition, aspirational prize and accordingly in 2007 it resulted in 2 million visitors to the Dorito website. The only problem is that even in 2007 the Super Bowl spot cost USD2.6M – the whole campaign probably cost $1.50 per website visit. Now in 2009 they’ve added a $1M prize – if your strategy is to pay people to turn up, you’ll need to increase the payments to sustain novelty until it’s no longer economically viable.
Buying yourself a tribe by Induced UGC or any other means is a short-term and unsustainable approach. Businesses need to take a much longer term view – cultivating a brand worth following, a tribe that follows it and ways for individuals in that tribe to share their love.
If you’re a manufacturer wanting to incorporate a Blu-Ray device in your product, you need to negotiate a license with each of the three bodies that represent the various patent holders – 18 in total.
This is an example of the gridlock economy
, the problem caused by ownership distributed between multiple parties.
It’s a form of complexity
that increases the cost and risk to your customers, reducing the benefits they receive (and in turn the price they’re prepared pay you!).
And it’s a hurdle that prevents your customers
from making your product a raging success (because you can’t and only they can).
Fortunately, three years after the Blu-Ray product was first launched, the patent holders have announced a one stop licensing shop
. The expensive lesson here is to make the end-to-end user experience
of your product a priority from day one – don’t wait until it hurts your business.
We shouldn’t be surprised that road safety authorities are obsessed with speeding – it’s an easily measured safety factor in a sea of possible factors (fatigue, distractions, blood alcohol, skill, training, conditions and vehicle maintenance to name a few) that are not. It was then only a short step to attribute meaning to that limited data set and blame speeding for almost everything. This long-running road safety TVC is a particularly good example of this, blaming speed for three dangerous behaviours that include no speeding at all:
Humans are particularly good at recognising patterns and applying meaning to data no matter how poor our data sets are – consider astrology, for example. Ensure, therefore, that you go well beyond the easily measurable data – consider instead what factors might be meaningful and find new ways to measure them.
A conversation with a salesperson at my front door last night:
I’m with [a company offering phone + internet packages] but you’re with Telstra.
Who do you use for internet?
Oh – I can’t beat that …
You use it all each month?
It’s good isn’t it – I’m on TPG’s seventy gig plan.
Yeah, don’t tell anyone … [walking away, grinning sheepishly]. See you.
Doing something that you can’t believe in makes it difficult to succeed. Worse, it’s corrosive to your self-esteem. Get out as quickly as you can.
A friend sent me this article about the Hulme supercar which, like many supercar projects, has run out of investment prior to launch.
There’s a lot to be said about the pitfalls of designing and manufacturing supercars:
- it’s not unlike a cliff business that Seth strongly suggests most of us avoid,
- it requires an impossibly broad range of skills,
- most cars are vanity, ego-driven projects rather than customer-focused designs,
- road safety compliance is almost impossible to obtain,
- low volume production inefficiencies result in a world of pain, and
- the start-up investment required is orders of magnitude higher than most estimate.
Very few low-volume car businesses survive. Even the names you know have struggled – Aston Martin commenced business in 1913 but apparently made its first profit under Ford ownership in the 1990s. That’s some cliff.
The cautionary tale I want to tell today, however, is of escalating commitment.
In her extraordinary talk on negotiation practice and pitfalls, ‘Winners don’t take all’, Margaret Neale tells us that we escalate our commitment when focus on our sunk costs – the costs that are by definition unrecoverable – instead of our opportunity cost, the value of the alternatives that we do not follow. As a result we send good money, good resources and good opportunities down the drain. Margaret’s strong advice is “Ignore sunk costs. Pay attention to opportunity costs.”
The Hulme supercar story reeks of escalating commitment – as Jack Freemantle says in the interview: “I’ve got guys that when we first talked about it, came up and gave me their life savings. We got 300 grand in a month. Those guys need to be looked after. You can quit on yourself, but you can’t quit on other people.”
Jack’s commitment to his investors is laudable and I can relate to his position more than most, having personally lost money launching a European sports car in New Zealand. The question that he needs to ask himself, however, is whether the best way to make money for himself and his investors is to seek even more investment in this project (which in my and clearly others’ opinion has a low chance of success), or to seek an alternate and more favourable opportunity.
Ignore sunk costs. Pay attention to opportunity costs.
Times are tough for many businesses and will likely get worse. If you needed proof, however, that adding value to customers generates profit in any economic climate, consider Apple’s earnings for Q4 08 – Apple sold 6.8 million iPhones last quarter, has USD25B in the bank and zero debt.
It’s easy to blame the economic climate, recalcitrant customers or the phases of the moon for poor profitability. What’s hard is to accept responsibility for poor results and to start creating real value for your prospective customers.
If customers purchase your products through a tender process, they’re giving you a stern warning – you sell a commodity.
Commodities are good products. Jim Collins taught us, however, that ‘good is the enemy of great’. Make something great and customers won’t waste time and money shopping around, they’ll come straight to you and buy.
The employed labor market is about potential, based on prior success. A low risk form of potential, if you like. But in the self-reliant, self-starting, self-employed world, no one’s interested in what you could do if you actually did it. They’re interested in what you’re already doing or have already done. It’s an easy lesson to understand but a hard one to learn / unlearn.
Kudos to Seth Godin and his blog musings for helping me to understand this.
There is no upside to setting a poor customer expectation, even one that lasts only a few seconds. Don’t do it.
Elegant ideas are so powerful that to know them is to fully understand them. To understand them is to forget what life was like beforehand – their designed simplicity belies their value.
Here’s a simple idea that I appreciate every week – shopping trolley?wheels that are self-arresting on an inclined moving walkway:
Here’s how they work – on normal flooring, the metal wheels roll normally. On the moving walkway, however, the metal wheels fall into the tread, resting the trolley on its rubber stops and allowing me to let go of my heavy shopping trolley. It’s effortless, automatic and the arresting function has no moving parts.
It’s so simple it’s obvious. Anyone could have thought of it, right? Wrong. As a sober reminder, here is?a moving walkway travesty from Melbourne domestic airport:
As you enter the walkway you see this sign, telling you to release your handle. Then a smaller warning sign with the same info. Then an emergency stop button to arrest boths walkways if needed. When you reach the other end, there’s yet another sign &?emergency stop. Finally – just moments from disaster – you hear a looped recording telling you to now ignore all the signs and depress the handle before?exiting the walkway. I can see it now?- crowds piled up at both ends of the walkway for failing to release and depress their handles at the critical moment.
Why? They fixed the wrong problem. They satisficed on their trolley design, burdening users with?the?responsibility of protecting life and limb by performing?a counter-intuitive task. They didn’t push through the complexity to find the simple solution.
Never underestimate the value of elegant ideas, nor those who generate them.