How the blogosphere views Naked’s fake video episode – and YouTube viewers start posting their responses
Tomorrow will probably see the news agenda move on, but the biggest Australian marketing story of the year so far has come after two brands got caught misleading consumers on social media.
Last week came the girl getting a tattoo to win the reef job who actually worked for Cummins Nitro. This week, it was Naked Communications’ turn after their hoax viral of a girl trying to find a man who lost his jacket was exposed.
Today has probably generated more (mainly negative) blog postings about the behaviour of an Australian agency in one day than ever before. Here’s what Australia’s marketing community has to say.
Communications expert Tim Longhurst describes Naked’s staff as “The ponytail people”. Telling how he came across Naked when they were involved in faking blogs ahead of the launch of Coke Zero, he says:
“Whenever I hear “Naked Communications”, in my mind’s eye I see a guy in a ponytail. Slick, confident, out of touch, total contempt for the audience, a liar.”
He adds: “Naked Communications seem to come out every once in a while to show that they’re not afraid of damaging a client’s reputation – as long as there’s a few column inches in it. Does Naked have a Code of Ethics at their office? Are they using it as a mouse mat?
“Being socially destructive – eroding people’s confidence in each other – isn’t a simple by-product of this kind of dishonest marketing, it’s the main outcome. When you’re wrapping a fresh elastic around your ponytail, ‘Any publicity is good publicity’ probably feels like a smart thing to say.”
The acidlabs blog argues that the idea was a valid one, saying:
“I think the concept, which borrows heavily from real life, is very clever. But there’s one problem. It told us fibs. It pretended to be real. It’s not. It aimed deliberately to deceive. The whole campaign sock puppets as reality. And that’s where it breaks down.”
But it adds: “This campaign is disingenuous at best and a PR disaster at worst. My view is that it might just lose Naked clients.”
However the acidlabs comments thread offers a different take, with a member of staff from Stickywood, a branded content firm that Naked is part-owner of, saying the stunt has already brought clients through the door. Kate Richardson, who works part time from the Naked office, says:
“Funnily enough, I heard from one of their staffers today that not only have they taken calls from a few nutters slagging them off, but also two new clients who’ve called after seeing the campaign unfold!”
And still with acidlabs, a representative from Naked client Telstra, also has a say. Big Pond’s senior social media adviser Mike Hickinbotham posts that the stunt “only further stimulates mistrust in the online environment and adds unnecessary barriers to transforming social media’s potential into reality. he goes on:
“While I support Australian corporations getting more involved in social media, my personal appeal is that corporations do so in a manner that’s transparent and honest.”
Defamer Australia gently suggests that Naked managing partner Adam Ferrier may be getting ahead of himself to compare the hoax to Orson Welles’ War of the World classic:
“Let Naked Communications show you the art of the brilliant retort as they respond to claims their recent attempt to start a YouTube phenomenon was ultra lame and terribly misleading. I love Naked Communications so hard right now. Comparing that half-arsed attempt at YouTube trickery to War Of The Worlds is like the advertising equivalent of the ‘Tusk’ film clip.”
On B&T’s blog, managing editor Kevin Johns compares the traditional 30 second TV ad to the hoax technique, saying both are seduction techniques:
“Which is better? The guy you can spot easily and avoid or the one who deceives you and draws you in a little – depending on how suspicious you are. Either way, it’s the latter guy rather than the former who stands the biggest chance of getting a slap, although at least he had more interesting things to say.”
And Naked’s Adam Ferrier, offers a response on his own blog:
“I think people with a history in social media who want careers in marketing and communications should get educated in the broader aspects of human behaviour and marketing. Please. Some of the comments people are making in this space are at best naive.”
As Mumbrella has previously posted, Brendon Sinclair of Tailored Web Services was highly critical: “These clowns are screwing the Australian digital media landscape and giving everyone a bad name with their amateurish attempts at viral campaigns and use of social media.”
A blog by market researcher kelpenhagen, who says she works for a company affiliated to Naked although she’s “never cared much for them” warns that there are far worse sins going on in business every day:
“I am not sure what people are upset about. That consumers are being ‘fooled’ by ads? Sometimes the naivete of “social media experts” is exacerbating.”
Nick Ellery of Marketing is a Dirty Word is more scathing:
“So many campaigns end up with companies / agencies being dicks to their customers. Conversation and substance are the name of the game in this new marketing world that we live in, yet cheap tricks pulled in order to ‘go viral’ continue to pop up and (a) sully the name of marketers everywhere and (b) make Internet users more cynical by the day.
“The line is to be drawn when you deliberately try to deceive your audience, with no real intention to cause dialogue, but simply to deceive in order to create traffic. This is no different to spamming it sucks that this campaign is proceeding and that I will never buy anything from Witchery man, or hire Naked as a strategy firm.”
Marketing Magazine says there are lessons to be learned:
“Once the anger and berating has ended and the dust settled, it is important to look at the reasons why ‘viral’ campaigns go wrong and learn from it,” says assistant editor Matty Soccio.
Cheryl Gledhill also refers back to Naked’s previous mis-steps with Coke Zero. Writing on her Moltn Core blog she says:
“It doesn’t matter what technology we develop, advertisers are going to find a way to ruin it. People are switching off ads and putting their trust in social networks – ooh let’s pretend to be one of them and push our cola drink while we’re at it. They are just forcing consumers further and further underground and creating a cynical and jaded target market. “
Arguing that not all viral is good viral, Paul Baiguerra of PABA Media says that people are being a bit too harsh towards Naked:
“Naked and their client Witchery have been hauled over the coals on-line for lying and being deceitful, which I think misses the point entirely (to be fair to Naked there has been some overt chest beating around what social media is and isn’t, but there has also been a lot of fair criticism for the failings of this work). I think their sin is having done it so poorly and without any regard as to where to from here.”
At The Content Makers, which focuses on journalism, Margaret Simons writes: “The media has been had – again – by a stunt in which an advertising agency posted a fake YouTube video.”
Chris Bishops writes at Beyond Digital Media that Naked should have got advice from colleagues in sister companies:
“Perhaps the Naked strategy team could have called on the expertise of Julian Cole from sister agency, The Population, who has repeatedly warned against faking social media messagesand advises full disclosure. Last time I looked, Naked’s CEO Matt Baxter was a non-executive director of The Population.”
Tony Richardson at AdNotes said:
“Too many industry players are disconnected from the real world. If Ferrier really knows no one who felt deceived, he needs to get out more. The builders, accountants, IT people, HR people, and teachers that I discussed this with feel VERY deceived.”
Paull Young warns on Young PR of “worshipping at the false church of viral,” saying:
“I’m dumbstruck as to why so many advertising and marketing folk feel the need to put deception at the center of a search for the Holy Grail of viral.”
The lovedigital podcast also tackles the subject.
One of the more amusing takes so far comes Matt Moore on the Engineers Without Fears blog where he warns:
“Jesus, Heidi, that’s a really ugly jacket you’ve got there. I mean the a guy that wears that kind of jacket is probably a woman-bashing closet alko or something. Of course the jacket ‘smells good’, he had to get the blood and puke dry-cleaned off it. You’re better off staying away from him.”
And while it may be a little early for Naked to claim a vindication of its strategy, comedy responses to the original video have started to appear on YouTube including an American who claims to have lost the jacket after attending a Jewish aboriginal wedding :
[youtube=http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yfOVP4j6_DM&feature=related]
[youtube=http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ms_MY3y5XeQ&feature=related]
[youtube=http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=o5YemY10Jn8&feature=related]
I’m not 100 per cent sure about your quote of me above. Obviously it’s accurate, but I’m not certain it’s been taken quite the right way. Naked’s campaign for Witchery was a good idea in concept – storytelling is always a great way to connect with an audience, a love story more so. The use of YouTube video equally a good idea. The lies, obviously not.
If this had been conceived as a series of little webisodes where the girl and the guy eventually find each other and end up happily together clad in beautiful Witchery clothing, it would have worked a treat. Echoes of the old Nescafe Gold campaign that was a success here, the US and the UK, no?
User ID not verified.
I don’t know Stephen.
I think (within this context) the moment when people (let’s say, non-marketers and focus on the target audience) realise they’ve been ‘had’ is the moment they’re likely to think “ahhhh….brilliant!”. Or at least “Cute!”. At the worst, you might get a “Yeah, whatever”.
That was the response from my very non representative, very non-scientific sample of non-marketing friends who’d seen it (sample of 3).
If, as you say, the campaign had been conceived as a series of little webisodes (like traditional type advertising, but run on the internet?), I’m guessing they’d have needed another league of budget entirely. And I wonder who, in their right mind, would have watched it? That, as you say, has been done, done, done, done before.
User ID not verified.
@Katei, not that I want us taking over Tim’s blog as a medium for our conversation, but in my mind I see this working with the video exactly as it is. No change at all but with a subtle reveal right at the end that makes sure we know it’s a campaign.
How you’d do that, I’m yet to figure out. But the story could still suck us in.
Take the LG Scarlet ads. I was completely sucked in by the “Alias” style of the TV and cinema ads and the bus stop posters. I totally wanted that to be a real TV series. I even though it could be until I went looking. I was actually sucked in to the whole world of the thing.
The Witchery ads could have worked the same way. Great concept, clever execution, but no reveal. You’ll note that really, it’s the lack of the reveal that’s disappointed people. Just one more little step.
User ID not verified.
Stephen
I guess part of my point is when you say it’s disappointed people; who exactly?
Obviously quite a few people with marketing/social media backgrounds. But until I see the Galaxy Poll read on the target market’s response, and assess that response *within the context of Witchery’s strategic objectives* (of which this campaign may only be a wafer thin slice), then I just can’t see how anyone can make a call on its success or otherwise.
*italics
User ID not verified.
Unlesss something dramatic happens, I’m probably not going to put up any more posts on this subject today, as we’re in danger of going into overkill.
But if today’s Daily Telegraph is to be believed, that evolution was the next part of the plan. According to the Tele, Naked were already casting for the man-in-the-jacket
Definitely not as good as Naked’s groundbreaking work on Next Top Model 2008 for Kotex U – that was fantastic, real TV when the models made the TVCs.
It’s interesting that everyone will bash Naked when they get the chance … I wonder why …
@Stephen- maybe they could not do “one more little reveal” because everyone was screaming at them to come clean, apologise, and eat humble pie. Like Katie – sample of four, but people I work with are sort of disappointed that they didn’t get to see how it unfolded – not that they were “duped” because they all got that it was a story (real or fictional). But funny they DO know the cost of the jacket and Witchery is launching a menswear line…
(BTW – I don’t work for an affiliate of Naked – we are sworn enemies)
User ID not verified.
Hey Tim,
Great debate.
FYI – The link is broken on Matty’s quote. 🙂
Thanks,
Kate
User ID not verified.
Ta, Kate. Fixed…
@kelpenhagen I think this story nears dead horse status…
My thought of the reveal would have been in the original video.
The followup video Naked released should have been a mea culpa rather than disingenuous.
They’ve got heaps of publicity for this, and must consider it a success on those grounds. Whether it ends up being a success on sales grounds and brand awareness is yet to be seen.
As someone who gives advice on social media strategy, the whole thing bugged me for not being honest and open. Tim Longhurst’s original blog response called out The Cluetrain Manifesto and Age of Conversation, both of which Adam says he’s read. This campaign didn’t feel like Naked took to heart much that was said in them.
Of course, all of this is my opinion, so it lies somewhere on a spectrum with many possibilities. The opinions of me and others for whom this campaign grated are not necessarily absolutely right, just one possible right. There are others with equally well-considered views that disagree.
User ID not verified.
@stepehn – if it is a dead horse, why keep flogging it?
Is it because Naked hasn’t broken down and cried “mea culpa”? Or that Adam Ferrier has gone and posted at most blogs his side of the story (pretty reasonably actually – not as you said “belligerently”).
Sure, Tim Longhurst did bring up aforementioned publications, but he also called The Naked folk “pony tail people” – quite dismissive of an agency that actually does pretty fine work (they wouldn’t be as successful as they are if they didn’t – clients come back – they are happy, the see RESULTS)
The key issue here is that there is a lot of foot stamping from particular people that they are right, they know better, that they know social media better than the “pony tail” people – and ultimately they should be given all the good big juicey accounts like this one. That’s the point. You want the work. You said it in your own post. So if anyone slips up in the slightest way, you call them on it…LOUDLY. It IS kind of getting tired and boring.
I think the horse has well and truly kicked it now. May it rest in peace.
Kelly Tall
User ID not verified.
@Kelly, last word, I hope. I’m no advertising expert, and never will be. But I (and several others, all of whom are very good) can give ad/PR/marcomms companies (and anyone else who asks) some decent advice on best ways to use social media.
I neither want nor ask for the whole gig. I’m in no position to take it. But Naked and others could look to people like me on an occasional basis to help them out with some perspective from a different area of expertise. I certainly pick up the phone or email others from time to time for educated advice on stuff I’m not full bottle on.
User ID not verified.
Most of the commentary so far has focused on Naked. I bet they’re absolutely loving all the controversy and publicity. Their equivalent of Google’s “don’t be evil” might as well be “don’t be boring”. They are the “shock jocks” of the strategic communications world. But enough about them.
I can’t claim to have read every posting on the issue but the voice seemingly absent from all this so far is that of the client. Presumably someone with in Witchery with “marketing” in their job title had to sign-off on this piece of communication?
We can’t really judge whether to pick or a pan until we know exactly what they were trying to achieve and on which target audience(s).
Perhaps Witchery are trying to reposition their brand away from “smart and simple” towards “sneaky”.
Maybe they’re refocusing on a new target audience and now trying to appeal to Bunny Boilers and aspiration victims.
Time for a public service announcement, methinks:
Attention all married men and guys in serious (hetro) relationships: wearing Witchery jackets can seriously damage your relationship (not to mention your family pet rabbit).
Marketing 101 … authenticity is a vital component of brand management. Marketing professor Mark Ritson from the Melbourne Business School put it like this in an interview from last year: “Consumer insight companies say consumers have started seeking ‘authenticity’. That’s rubbish. They always wanted it. Most consumers are a lot smarter and more genuine than the marketers who target them. They want brands burned with the mark of their founders, not artificially engineered by agencies”
Amen.
User ID not verified.