Think popular, not premium: Why the Henry & Aaron ‘It’s a snap’ video went viral

it’s ironic that what makes the cited videos successful – total creative control for the producers, shock value, having a laugh, inappropriateness etc – are the exact things that most corporates will not allow in the process of creating a “viral video”.

so while interested parties keep dangling these successes in front of corporate marketers the reality is most will never have the fortitude to allow the ingredients to replicate that success, and will simply contribute another digital tumbleweed to the barren landscape of internet content failures.

viral is an outcome of a great piece of content, not a strategy for a tight-arse corporate with no imagination or willingness to let go. my advice to most corporates is don’t bother with this strategy if you can’t do it properly.

@rob i think you’ll find that CIT is a ‘corporate’.

It’s just a corporate whose marketing people authorised the release of a superbly executed video which in a creative sense delivered value to their target audience

what they didn’t do is let overarching brand concerns interview with the potential reach of this idea

this is just marketing 101

@beezlebub that was my point…….in the context of my comment ‘corporate’ is a disparaging term for boring behaviour and conservatism at the expense of effectiveness, not organisation size/type. either way, CIT are an exception to most and have seen some success in this case.

I would have preferred a happy ending like “Psych. I told you – I’m A God!”

Rob’s on the money.

CIT appear to have the luxury of being a brand with very little heritage or value to protect.

So this is hardly a lesson for major corporations. Brand’s are a mark of quality to consumers, customers, suppliers and employees. And brand equity and reputation is built over many years of careful investment.

If CIT think they are going to build equity over time with this approach someone needs to tell em they’re dreaming.

When I was at school I worked my arse off studying to get into the most prestigious University possible . . . not the one that had the funniest Youtube video.

x 2 Rob. well said.

@dannyboi i have to call you on that comment – you mistakenly link effective, cut-through communications with potential to destroy “brand equity”. this is very dangerous thinking. ads are not brands, and brands are not ads.

your argument leads to a boring, homogenised world of bland and safe corporate communications designed to not offend or “damage brand equity”.

this is a path to brand irrelevance, as in an increasingly cluttered and fragmented world, cut-through is key. and cut-through doesn’t mean offensive or damaging, just not safe and bland.

the beauty of this spot for CIT is it targets youth/uni students, who appreciate the humour. consider the entertainment the target audience consumes, to them this is a funny spot. (maybe not to 100% of them, but enough of them to be meaningful)

if you fail to make the consideration set for purchase decisions, or stay in the minds of your target audience, protecting “brand equity” will quickly fade as going out of business becomes a bigger problem.

advertising that relates to the target audience and gets their attention is effective, whether your audience is uni students or retirees. after we get them engaged and hopefully sell them something, our brand builds via on-going interaction/purchases. the process does not work the other way around.

protecting brand equity is not a strategy.

@rob, I think my point is that shock and gore tactics won’t build long term brand equity for an Educational Institution that students pay thousands of dollars to attend.

That said I completely agree with you about the prevalence of risk averse behaviour in our industry leading to ‘digital tumbleweed’.

And I can’t argue with 1.6m views – it would be interesting to know how many are from Perth

@rob…let me guess you’ve never worked professionally outside the ad industry, right?

dannyboi didnt say brands are ads. you are verballing him. He said ads affect brands. This is beyond argument.

It’s necessary but not sufficient that dvertising relates to the audience and gets their attention. It may be effective – at getting their attention. But it can also turn them off your product and brand.

“Getting their attention” is not a strategy. it’s a stunt, and one that can backfire.

It might surprise you that products and services can get into the consideration set of consumers without advertising having anything to do with it.

@beezlebub wrong on that guess……i’ve worked both agency and client side and have relevant undergrad and post-graduate degrees, so i’m not coming from a position of “advertising is everything”.

Bringing it back to basics, all i said was this particular communication targeting uni students used communication that had cut-through and relevance to their market, and that “damaging brand equity” should not be thrown up simply because of the black humour and gore.

And a youtube video does not make a marketing strategy, but we should also not assume this is all they are doing. CIT will build brand equity over time once enrolled students have a great experience and their reputation builds, and a humorous ad that has gone viral to put them on the map is not a bad start.

@Rob…he is utterly right on the money. Working with a corporate at the moment who wants a “hit viral” video. Of course they loved our pitch, now they’ve trimmed that idea down to a boring turd. You can’t create anything engaging in a vacuum of fear, most corporates live in a perpetual state of fear with their employees hocked to the hilt, nobody wants to take a chance, so very rarely does anything ever get done that has any real traction. The same sad story over and over again.