Comments on: Go Wonka Go

By: 10 choses que je ne savais pas la semaine dernière #6 « Notre lien quotidien

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:34:57 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Jean

Jean — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:50:55 +0000

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.

By: Ana Andjelic

Ana Andjelic — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:10:28 +0000

forgot to thank you for responding to my comment!

By: Ana Andjelic

Ana Andjelic — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:07:10 +0000

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).

By: amber

amber — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:30:51 +0000

(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.

By: Ana Andjelic

Ana Andjelic — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:32:45 +0000

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.