Viral Marketing: A chaotic system of marketing distribution

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 2, 2010 at 2:51pm

The Negative Aspects of Viral Marketing

As I study complex systems and how it applies to marketing (especially viral marketing), entrepreneurship and investing, I ran across some cool data.

There is a very interesting article about LeBron James, Nike and angry fans fighting back. The article is called "LeBron James Nike Ad Spawns Host of Spoofs."

In summary, Nike tried to deal with the issues of James's controversial decision to deal with leaving Cleveland Cavaliers for Miami. The 90 second, "epci-like" ad tried to make water down the controversy. It ended up doing the reverse.

Analysis:

This is what happens when advertisers and their agencies think "traditional marketing" in the world of social media. The swarm and swarm intelligence came back with a vengeance. Here's how:

Nike Agency + Nike + LeBron James = the original version generated 5.1 million online video views.

The swarm intelligence + angry (extremely angry) fans + social network: they created spoofs and parodies that have generated 5.8 million views, according to Visible Measures. The figures don't include views of Nike's paid advertising -- which does not matter.

Looks like the swarm, swarm intelligence and swarm vengeance won and will continue to win against Nike.

Question: If you were Nike, what would you do now? Put out another epic video or put your head into the sand and hope nobody else sees the ad?

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 2, 2010 at 3:02pm

Here's one of the swarm ads:

Source: YouTUBE

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 2, 2010 at 3:09pm

If anything I've learned the hard way being am entrepreneur and investor is the simple fact that humor and sex sells in the land of marketing -- even in the world of the swarm.

Question: Think about it. What would you rather watch: a spoof or some bull s$it epic from a Nike Ad Agency?

Permalink Reply by Nirlesh Koshta on December 4, 2010 at 6:51am

Answer to the question: I would courageously accept the mistake that is committed and apologize for it! Sometimes going straight at the problem helps to build more positive image among people and customers. Nike could then come up with a much better ad respecting all the sectors of the market and society. ;-)

~ Nirlesh

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 4, 2010 at 3:25pm

Hi Nirlesh. Crisis management (which in a weird way LeBron and Nike have on their hands now even though they never thought about the current possible outcome) always demands an apology.

You're right. Apology is the right approach but now they have to figure out "how" to apologize. :-)

Permalink Reply by Nirlesh Koshta on December 4, 2010 at 5:59pm

Hi Damir,
Well I made a mistake, after reading the whole controversy of Nike-LeBrons, I think Nike has got its fair share of ad importance in the market and it is LeBrons whose image is tarnished. I think Nike has it in them to pick up these stormy issues and get best advantage of them at the cost of the sportsperson(s) who endorses them. It is a dirty trick but in business that is acceptable, I guess that is why they had done it once more (first one was about Tiger woods and now it is LeBrons.)

So it is definite they are never going to apologize for it and besides apologizing was never an option in this case since they wanted publicity out of it at any cost. Any publicity is acceptable to them as it does not effect them much as it is affecting the sportsperson.

I do not if you have come across this article, but still forwarding it to you:
http://www.bnet.com/blog/advertising-business/did-nike-really-gain-...
~Nirlesh

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 4, 2010 at 9:52pm

Hi Nirlesh.

It's brand dilution by association when it comes to Nike and LeBron and Nike and Tiger Woods. This is the problem with having celebrities and athletes endorse any brand. Sure, you can increase your sales with the right celebrity partnership, but it can be a double edge sword.

Yeah, most likely Nike doesn't have to do anything but LeBron's image is tarnished and he has to do something about it.

I am not sure his business | sports agent managers advised him correctly when LeBron had a show on ESPN on the day of his decision. I was in Europe when they had the show and I was actually embarassed for LeBron. It appears that his managers are inexperienced in my opinion. I know a little bit about this because I worked with a very famous sports celebrity and his business manager for about a year....so, I would never have advised LeBron to do an ESPN TV show.

I have been a serious athlete so I do greatly appreciate pro athletes in any sport but please -- to make a show out of his decision process was ridiculous in my opinion. :-)

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 4, 2010 at 9:59pm

To add to my comments: I just read the article you came across. I think Nike was right on the money not to drop Tiger Woods.

I have learned through my life personally and in business that you find out who your true friends are when the chips are down. It's easy to have friends when you've got money or success or you're on top of the popularity polls, etc.

But your true friends (business or personal) are the ones that stick with you no matter what. Nike showed incredible class and character by sticking with Tiger. Their strategy (if it was really a strategy) increased the value of their Nike brand.

I feel bad for Tiger. Obviously, he is a great athlete but with some personal problems. Bless his heart.

Nike showed incredible class. That's the bottom line.

Permalink Reply by Nirlesh Koshta on December 6, 2010 at 8:46am

Hi Damir,

Yes Nike atleast did one thing right in this aspect: they held on with Tiger be it righteousness or business. Though I really wonder was it more of a business or righteousness that made them do it. It is a question that could pick up quite a stir. Anyone's guess could be as good as mine. Somewhere I do feel though it was a business decision. :-)

I sympathize more with Lebrons than with Tiger though. However I feel that every sportsperson must have his personal space to do what he thinks is right or not. Sometimes as part of public, we give them more importance than what is required perhaps that is why the companies pay so much money to them for endorsing their products.. But in bad times as you rightly told there are very few people to back you up. That is when a strong family comes into play.

Yes endorsing any celebrity or sportsmen is a double edged sword, the companies who advertise with them seems like maintain a progress character report card of each player so as to know his market value and consider that for signing them up.

Yes perhaps the managers of Lebrons must have known it coming and must have not allowed him to go ahead with it or they could even be more interested in maintaining a big brand as Nike in their wings and did not want to lose it. :-)

~ Nirlesh

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 6, 2010 at 10:53am

Hi Nirlesh. If anything I've learned from the LeBron article, it is to watch for the "negative aspects of viral marketing." :-)

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 3, 2010 at 10:33am

Toyota got it right with the Swagger Station when it comes to viral marketing. One of our members, Joseph Wesley Putnam added the video. I've never seen it before -- despite the fact that I comment on Taiichi Ohno's discussion forum about the Toyota Production System at Ohnodex.

This is absolutely brilliant marketing + viral marketing. Please check out the video and see the amount of hits it has gotten on YouTube.

Permalink Reply by damir perge on December 3, 2010 at 10:38am

One of our other members, Herman, an inventor made a cool observation:

"Yeah! That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Cross culture marketing is the bomb!"

Herman is right: cross culture marketing + humor + characters + story = viral marketing success.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page