Go Wonka Go
Did you know that Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 film interpretation of Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, was fully funded by Quaker Oats as a vehicle to promote a new candy bar? I found out this weekend, when my husband was so sick he had to stay home and watch movies while I went to an apple orchard. He watched the special features on the DVD. Special features rock.
A producer convinced Quaker to buy the rights to the book and finance the movie – They re-named the bar “Wonka” to tie in with the movie, and changed the title of the film to WIlly Wonka and the Chocolate Factory so the name of the candy bar would be more visible.
Branded content for the web is on everyone’s mind lately – how can brands create something more interesting than advertising to win the hearts and minds of the public? I’m usually of the mind that if you know things have been done in the past, they seem more feasible*. And branded content has been around for ages! One of the best known examples of brand-created original content, besides Willy Wonka, created around products or brands is Soap Operas – entire programs created just to make sure housewives were watching TV or listening to the radio when your soap ads came on.
So brands have been creating content that people enjoy for awhile now – it’s just that now they’re figuring out how to do it in an interactive medium, and in a time where there’s a hell of a lot more to do in the afternoon than watch soap operas.
Many companies have realized lately that instead of just spending money to tell consumers something, they should be spending money involving consumers in something enjoyable and entertaining. A recent study from King Fish Media revealed that almost all of the companies they surveyed were allocating more dollars to the creation of original content, for the purposes of attracting new customers and retaining old ones.
Which is great! But I think the trap that a lot of brands fall into is that since they’re reallocating money from advertising to original content, they want it to carry all of their brand messages. Which doesn’t usually add up to entertainment for the audience. It’s just a different kind of ad.
Fortunately, there’s a difference between brand messaging and brand personality. And brands can create content that’s true to and reflects their personality, even if it’s completely devoid of brand messaging. Cadbury is a good example of this – they decided their behavior was all about creating joy, and their web content did just that, without a word about chocolate.
The good thing about reallocating dollars to the creation of original content is that there are a lot of ways to do it – some channels can carry more brand-specific messaging, while some can be tasked with giving people things that let them fall in love (and stay in love) with your brand.
And the best part about a brief focused on getting people to fall in love, versus hammering home brand messaging, is that amazing things emerge. So here’s to brands continuing to make things as amazing as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, in the interactive space.
*Could have made a Harry Potter reference here, but I resisted. You’re welcome.
Ha, I am actually against creating always more and more content on behalf of the brands online. I think that it makes more sense to connect the content that’s already there with people, information, utility, etc. – i.e. to create some sort of system around all that crazy amounts of content online. Just think that the last thing we need is MORE content that is forgotten a month after the brand campaign is over.
I was trying to think of examples other than Cadbury that can be used here … maybe Coke Happiness Factory (I find it moderately entertaining on the first watch, and zero entertaining afterwards), or ALL’s Laundry Fairy (zero entertaining all around). Those two, or at least the latter one, may be examples of expressing “brand personality” as Amber puts it.
VW’s Timeless http://www.timeless50.com/design is, in contrast, much more interesting. Why? I guess because a) people decide the entertainment, and b) the brand actually curated something (notable fashion, technological, music inventions in the last 50 years).
I am not sure, but I think that Willy Wonka-like model actually may not be realistic anymore. Two reasons: a) relevancy (or the lack of it): people online watch whatever they find entertaining, brand behind it or not; and b) control: people on the web are not exactly willing to build their own content around the brands. And neither seem movies.
But, maybe I got it all wrong! Thanks for sharing Amber’s post.
(Hey Ana! it’s me. I’m back at Naked. Thanks for the comment!)
I agree about cluttering things up with more content that no one wants…seems counterproductive. And I think brands can sponsor or facilitate the continuation of great things that are already out there, as part of their brand behavior.
I think the reason I wanted to highlight the Wonka thing is exactly what you’re saying — people did find it interesting (more than interesting, in fact) and most didn’t know that it even had anything to do with a brand. I guess I’m saying make what people find interesting, if you want to create content, and let brand messaging live elsewhere.
Hey, Amber! (Welcome back.) You are right – and I agree with what you say about Wonka thing in your last paragraph: it’s just that I may interpret it differently. In my opinion, the fact that movie succeeded independently from (or, in spite of) its affiliation with the brand actually tells us that no one can predict what content people will like, and that thus the question if it is branded or not is not really relevant.
4 scenarios: a brand can create a great content and people will love it; someone else can create a great content and people will love it; brand can create a crappy content and people will ignore it; and someone can create a crappy content and people will ignore it.
I guess what I am saying is that yours is not a brand question. Or: for a content to succeed it’s not relevant if its branded or not … it’s hard to make any correlation there, so I would personally not advise brands to create content.
I would tell them to aggregate or curate content that people already like!
(p.s. I have actually seen the study you are quoting and was literally shocked that so many brands spend so much money on creating content … I mean, 90% of that is forgotten in no time).
forgot to thank you for responding to my comment!
Nice article !
I agree, it’s a perfect point of connexions to touch people and please them before trying to sell them goods…
I’m thinking about Red Bull. Even with branded events, people firstly enjoy the shown then drink RB. The brand comes afterwhile, as a featured ritual; like a thanksgiving turkey.
[...] a été financé par Quaker – propriétaire de la marque à l’époque – en vue de médiatiser les produits de la marque. Le mythe en prend un petit [...]