Kevin Smith blasts SWA - a lesson in Twitter and PR damage control

As I'm sure you know from glancing at the tabloids in the supermarket checkout, Kevin Smith was refused a seat on the plane because they said he needed to buy two seats.

On May 17 he agreed to call in to 102.1 in Toronto, and had plenty to say about the incident. Here's the podcast.

He feels he was treated unfairly and used Twitter to host a serious rant. They (SouthWest Airlines) attempted PR damage control with social media as well, but were essentially sticking by their policies.

What do you think? Should companies be bullied by... or "accommodate" tweeters and bloggers or should they hold their ground in the face of serious PR damage via social media?

TAKEAWAY FOR YOU:

1. Track mentions of your business in the internet - it's easy! (start with Google Alerts)
   
2. Have a policy for responding to negative press, particularly when it comes via social networking
3. A little latitude in your policies, please!
4. Always take a step back and consider whether or not you're being reasonable! What would a normal person expect to hear from you / expect you to do?

More Twitter abuse, but this is also good... sort of.

Here's something I noticed on Twitter that can also be classified as "abuse" (although some of you might argue that).

These two people sent EXACTLY the same tweet (not identified as re-tweets) at EXACTLY the same time.

There are two reasons that's bad, and one reason that's good:

1. BAD: These people have nothing interesting of their own to say about this particular piece of internet content - they're simply regurgitating.
   
2. BAD: It appears that they're just re-purposing other content as quickly as they can and as often as they can, so as to create an impression that they're connected and socially active (at least online!). That's why I referred to this as "abuse".
   
3. GOOD: The 'Bones' story is apparently interesting enough that people want to share it, which is one of the primary benefits of Twitter. If you have something interesting to say, say it. The more interesting it is, the more people will see it (which applies to more social networking sites, by the way).

So, where do you stand? Abusive regurgitation? Or meaningful viral activity?

Alas, most of the SuperBowl ads were funny

In a previous post I gave credit to the Coca-Cola Avatar spot as the SuperBowl's best because of its quality and its impact on the cola's brand.  

Most of the SuperBowl ads, though, were designed to be funny.  And funny can work too (see my other blog post on that).  Here's my vote for the funniest:

eTrade baby!

This campaign is almost as good as the PC/Mac ads, proving that repetition and consistency can be just as important as content.  If you have the best (traditional media) ad but only run it once, you're wasting your time (unless it's an online viral campaign - another discussion for another day).  If you have an OK ad but run it regularly, you're off to the races.  Even if it's a bad ad, enough frequency will make it effective (see Energizer bunny).

So, funny works, but only if you run it enough that people see it... and remember it.

Have your say: what are the best campaigns in terms of creating a character and running with it (e.g. eTrade baby, Mac/PC)?

Targeting the Web Savvy

Here's another contribution from the "recommended by friends" category. A friend of mine passed on this example of highly targeted marketing (thanks LK!).

In this case, the marketers for The Love Guru starring Mike Myers are quite clearly stirring up interest among the internet savvy. They even go so far as to call them... I mean us... by that very term.

This is an effective collection of YouTube spots to get us interested and to get us forwarding them to our fellow internet buddies.

How does it affect you and your company?

1. Can you use YouTube to promote your product or service in some form? Think about it - you'll come up with a way. Then think about how to really create an experience for the viewer/browser (like The Love Guru marketers did).
2. If you are using YouTube, are you just using it to show some video that's relevant and hopefully interesting? Or are you creating a production so compelling that people will sign up to receive the next YouTube "release" (again, as The Love Guru marketers did)? Furthermore, are your viewers compelled to forward it to their friends, achieving that viral effect that is so hard to achieve yet so effective?
   
3. Is it funny? Remember, funny works!

Enjoy!

A Whopper of a Marketing Gamble

Burger King just decided to join the reality TV / viral marketing / microsite game with its new "Whopper Freakout" campaign (www.whopperfreakout.com). The premise is simple: how angry would people get if they took away the Whopper?

This is a bold play to generate buzz, but how much buzz is really being generated? And at what risk? This actually seems like a lose-lose proposition when you think about it. If you threaten to take it away and no one cares, then what? If you threaten to take it away and people freak out (which was the desired intention it would seem), then you've just made a lot of your most loyal customers mad. Lose-lose.

Here's the bigger point: they tried to create a viral marketing campaign by creating the microsite and utilizing the reality aspect. But the only way to really generate buzz or any kind of viral momentum in this case is to keep the scam going for some time. People would create "bring back the Whopper" blogs and petitions, and BK would be all over the news, which in theory would be the objective. That's an enormous risk, which wisely, they avoided. If you watch the video on the microsite, they reveal right off the bat that it's a gag. Once that happened, the viral potential vanished. It just turned into a weak gag reel that you might see before the previews in a movie theater. Furthermore, in all honesty, the customers really didn't freak out. They were surprised and confused, but no one jumped over the counter.

When all is said and done, they accomplished their objective: to demonstrate that people love their Whopper. OK, I buy that. But they could have accomplished that in many other ways, most of which would have been even more genuine and in all likelihood more effective (think: "How much do you love your Whopper?" contest). The issue I have is that in an attempt to demonstrate marketing savvy, they basically created a gag reel disguised as a viral marketing campaign. I got the message, but the execution fell below my expectations.

But then again, here I sit, writing about it!

What are your thoughts? Success? Gag gone bad?