Yes. There Will Be Blood

I'm surprised at how little I hear about The Coke Show marketing initiative, especially the early part of it.  It should be written up in a text book (maybe it was).  In a nutshell, before Coke decided to embrace the "Mentos-Coke" fountain—they tried to create their own contest.  It was a flashy microsite that went something like this:

“as of this week, visitors to Coke.com can take part in "The Coke Show," monthly "challenges" testing their creativity.

In the first challenge, set to run through August, users are invited to submit short videos, but they're not limited to creating ads or odes to the brand. Instead, Coke is asking for 45-second video expressions of "the essence of you." Visitors will rate submissions, culling them down to 10, which will be judged by a group of professional filmmakers."

Ultimately, The Coke Show went away while people still talk about the "Coke Mentos Fountain" like it was yesterday.  And Coke ended up eventually joining the movement.

What does this have to do with blood?

Well, at SXSW my friend Chris Bernard moderated a panel titled "The Web Agency: There Will Be Blood".  I wish I were on the panel.  Garrick Schmitt of Avenue A/ Razorfish (owned by Microsoft) recently did a writeup of the panel where he had this to say:

"I took some good natured ribbing on this last point from my fellow panelists — clearly I was the “Poindexter” of the group. But, hey, given the rate of industry change — and the ongoing evolution of technology (witness the new YouTube APIs released today) — I still believe we have to embrace the complex and scary if we are to reap the benefit of the medium. To not keep up, well, that’s when we’ll see blood"

My guess is that Garrick's observation had something to do with his earlier comment about data driven design.  But he's right.  The reason why agencies who play in the digital space may end up being bled is because much of what they do is at odds with home grown social experiences.  Like the Coke Show and more infamously Bud.TV, many agencies want to create highly produced big budget experiences that rival the TV budgets that have fed the traditional agencies for years.

But there's a problem.  As the multi million dollar BUD.TV. underscores—highly produced content and slick production don't necessarily equal traffic.   Unlike the television medium which is less accountable—digital is measurable in every way possible.  Which means if the traffic, clicks, views and time spent isn't there—then it's time to put the effort to rest.

And that's where there will be blood.  Every time I come across digital properties with Hollywood level production and price tags—I have to wonder how the stats compare to blogs and social applications that can be developed for a fraction of the cost.  How much did it cost the creators of the Coke Mentos fountain to create their video?  To distribute it?

Sometimes I have to wonder if "digital marketing" and social media are at complete odds.  Will there be blood?  If so, I think it will be the metrics that does the cutting.

Comments

[Gavin Heaton]

You are right ... the metrics for digital engagement are razor sharp. But as was shown at various points during SXSW (not that I was there), the audience often know more that the "experts" -- after all, it is no longer about preaching from on high, but engaging in conversation. The brands (and agencies) that understand that changing dynamic will win in the long run.

[shawnpetriw]

Are you sure Coke didn't do a 180?

[Gavin Heaton]

@shawnpetriw ... perhaps they did it twice ;)

[Mark Neigh]

Exactly. One reason I don't buy the death of the 30 sec is that its the best way to create recognizable, cultural icons via advertising. On-line no one has time to watch, its not a captive audience. Plus BS detectors are at max, it needs to be genuine. If the whole Internet is long tail - we have to treat it that way.

[bone]

I caught the same panel at SXSW. What strikes me as a great civil war in this industry is that of Media and Creative—literally the two groups sparring over who takes the lead. Throw in Tech and now you have a triple civil war (whatever that is called). This is a primary struggle at our Agency b/c of the maturity of metrics/measurement, complexity of builds (either client or marketing) and a very saturated internet (hence, why Media is so important to get the eyeballs).

Garrick speaks from a Users point of view which is where all of us should be, but it came of in the panel as tactical. Now, if we were talking strictly online apps and builds, he's right on—they need to function first and have form follow that. Herein lies the struggle. Which "idea" wins? The function or the form? The best apps have both winning and that's my silver bullet answer. Nike+, Mint.com are strikingly different, but offer up a great experience and both come from an idea standpoint. They are an idea and they are useful.

In speaking to the :30 TV spot you have to look at what's right for the idea. TV, however crap that experience is, is still a viable medium choice for marketers/advertisers b/c of the eyeballs it can get. To me, it's how we use it. If it's a dead end conversation in a :30 spot that totally blows and, in this new media landscape, it's a missed opportunity to extend the interaction with the idea. Think back to BMW or more currently Shell's usage of TV to direct people to digital. Now, that's a kick ass use of not only media, but of an intelligent strategy to connect with humans on a higher level. That is an example of what would work best based on an idea in an Advertising scenario. Just to be clear.

Bigger question, when can we change "Advertising" to "Interactive Marketing"? "Interactive" meaning two-way dialogue instead of the medium.

[David Armano]

Bone,

Thanks for that comment. Interesting enough, my original image for this post was a screen gram with Mint, Nike + Twitter and Netflicks. Think I should bring it back?

[bone]

Yeah. I think it's a bigger concept—more powerful. What coke was going to do was brilliant, there's no doubt about that, but to capture the beautiful applications that are long lasting online for everyone to use is quite spectacular and one of the reasons I get stoked about going to work every day.

Not to mention those are more classified as "lifestyle" rather than niche/hobby/specialty. Speaking of... is it just me or is everyone trying to be an aggregate? LOL. Seriously tho, it really seems like the true freshman year of convergence where digital is much bigger than just your website...

A year ago it was about making funny, one-off viral stints that don't always scale. Now, the big question is, will Nike+ be around until i'm 70. Wow.

SXSW opened my eyes to a lot of this discussion and where marketing and engagement is heading. It will be an interesting year.

[Doug Schumacher]

David, fascinating issue around the top of production values.

Back when I was a pre-Web traditional copywriter with a Compuserv email address (seriously), much of the leading work in the industry was done by Fallon, who did it with miniscule production budgets relative to their coastal competitors. They'd use stock images (back when the selection was dreck), self-produced voice overs, local (Minneapolis) photographers.

The emphasis was clearly on the concept, not the production.

Once online advertising moved past banners, it became a a highly conceptual medium. And often it doesn't require great budgets to produce those concepts.

As Fallon showed, there's a big opportunity for any agency that can come up with big ideas that don't require big budgets.

[Garrick Schmitt]

Nice post, David. Would have been great to have you on the panel.

I love your line about "metrics that does the cutting." I couldn't agree more. The notion of looking at the relationship between production value and analytics is an important point and one that may upend our industry down the line. But I think what agencies produce, digitally, needs to change now. Trying to replicate a 30-spot online, per your examples, and then calling them immersive experiences ala Bud.TV, just won't cut it.

Brian Morrissey has a great piece in Adweek this week about how both traditional and digital agencies are starting to move away from flashy microsites and towards creating more meaningful business apps and customer relationship tools. To me, that is much closer to where we are headed online....and we are just starting to scratch the surface.

[David Armano]

Garrick,

Couldn't agree more. I come from a background functional design and can't help but see that this is where things need to be. It's nothing new.

PS, see:

http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2008/02/the-application.html

Doug, really interesting thoughts about Fallon. Thanks!

[Toad]

Yes, your tweet was right David- great comments.

Let me add my 2 cents: A lot of the form vs function debate hinges on whether the brand has any reason to be online.

Dominos does because people order pizza online. Ditto an airline, a hotel, or Nike Plus.

But if you're selling Dial soap or Cheerios or Maxwell House coffee or any other sort of packaged good/parity product, there's often not much reason for you to be online. You can hand out coupons or you can create a brand image that hopefully puts you over your competitors. And that that's probably best done on TV.
As (many of) you know, I'm always harping on how "Your Brand Is Not My Friend™" and nowhere is that more relevant than for low-interest parity product categories. "Prom King Brands" like Nike don't have to work as hard at being relevant online because people want a piece of their cool. Dawn dishwashing liquid, on the other hand...

I actually do see a use for the sorts of high production values that agencies use on TV. We just haven't seen the right uses of them yet. The sites references (e.g. Bud TV) are all not-very-well-thought-out ideas. But what if you had Pixar work with you on a functional site build. Where they provided the animation that took you through the experience. Suddenly you've got something pretty cool.

[David Armano]

Toad, you just described this:

http://www.coca-cola.com/template1/index.jsp?locale=en_US&site=../happiness_factory/index.html

Which I think is actually done well and appropriate. I spent some time playing the games and you can't help but admire the execution. Much better concept than the Coke Show.

[Jassim]

Big brands would always like to work within their succesful formula's, they dont want to risk looking less-successful....jus saw an ad for one of the brands where they are trying to associate themselves with the online world, HOW ? by showing 3 kids around a notebook (suggesting that they are online) and with a whole lot of emoticons surrounding them .....if this is how marketeers think they are 'engaging' their audiences then god help them from the huns ......

[Toad]

Agreed that the Coke Happiness site - http://www.coca-cola.com/template1/index.jsp?locale=en_US&site=../happiness_factory/index.html
is well done.

But imagine that sort level of production value and entertainment on a site whose main purpose was for you to actually buy something or make a reservation or whatnot. And engaging, immersive experience that actually had utility.

First brand to do that will really shine.

[Jacinta]

Brands are asking too much of consumers by trying to get them to enter codes, videos, age, sex, email, ss#...just kidding. Seriously though, people are becoming more and more skeptical of "big brother"