Church of the Customer Blog
« Why Chevy Tahoe campaign was doomed before it launched | Main | What should YouTube do? »
April 03, 2006
Why Chevy Tahoe campaign was doomed before it launched
The Chevy Tahoe Apprentice campaign is getting a lot of bad press.
It seems the anti-SUV crowd has mobbed the website, creating hundreds of commercials that would make any brand manager blanch. Some might point to it as proof that ceding any form of marketing involvement with the general public is a bad idea. That would be a shame.
My apologies to everyone involved in this effort, but it was strategically flawed at birth. It's a textbook case of what happens when buzz for the sake of buzz is the primary objective. Here's why: This campaign was designed to encourage a mass audience to spread messages. It wasn't designed with loyal and evangelistic Tahoe owners in mind. Heck, even the word "campaign" reflects the impetus of mass advertising and message control.
Chevy may have a noteworthy vehicle -- and perhaps they do -- so the most credible sources who can verify this are existing owners.
A better way to engage enthusiasts? A "send us your video about how much you love the Tahoe" program. Creating media takes time and effort. It might not generate a million entries, but so what. It certainly eliminates the drive-by digital graffiti vigilantes. A few hundred submissions of authentic, homemade videos would be pretty remarkable and some nice word of mouth. The ethnographic research alone from a free-form program like that would be invaluable.
Instead, we get more big-brand control. Providing movie clips, music and the ability to add text is not the solution to more a efficient "messaging strategy," like some sort of large-scale hypnotism sideshow disguised as engagement.
SUVs are widespread, but controversial; Chevy successfully created a feedback and broadcast mechanism for the SUV vigilantes. Tahoe discovered this the hard way because this was a program for the masses.
The lesson here is: If you're going to give up control, don't do it halfway, trying to game the system. The congregation is smarter than the carny. Appeal to the evangelists.
See Converse Gallery.
See Mac Love Song contest (from MacCompanion Magazine)
See New Line Cinema's Snakes on Plane song contest.
UPDATE (4/3/06):
* GM says they are not going to take down any of the negative ads. Nice move.
* GM says people have submitted more than 21,000 ads and have e-mailed commercials over 40,000 times. They also say 80% of the submissions depict the Tahoe in a favorable light. Really?
UPDATE (4/4/06):
* Check out a new website where people can submit, comment and vote on their favorite negative Tahoe ads. (Thanks Ben Rowe!)
UPDATE (4/5/06):
* ABC's Nightline ran a segment on this story. My Tahoe ad was featured and I almost was too : )
UPDATE (4/6/06):
* GM finally responds to the brouhaha on the GM Fastlane blog.
Other blogs that reference Why Chevy Tahoe campaign was doomed before it launched:
» Coca-Cola Blak planning meeting from hypocritical
Coca-Cola Exec: I feel like wasting some money. And (and!) I want a grassroots media nightmare like Chevy has going with their Tahoe commercials. [Read More]
» The New New Thing: Collaborating with Consumers from MarketerBlog
Based on a report in today’s New York Times, Chevy is learning the hard way what it means to engage in consumer generated media. Last month the company started a campaign to promote the Chevy Tahoe, by asking viewers of [Read More]
» Content Competitions from On Social Marketing and Social Change
Contests asking people from a priority audience to create content (print, radio and video ads; poetry, posters, etc) are nothing new in many social marketing and health communications programs. The embrace of it by major advertisers, however, has been ... [Read More]
» JUXTAPOSITION: GM SALES FALL 14% WHILE EMBRACING CUSTOMER GENERATED MEDIA from Maneuver Marketing Communique
I awoke this morning to a New York Times piece describing GM's Chevy Tahoe debacle and a Wall Street Journal [Read More]
» Slightly dressed conversations from Hans VB's WebLog
So Robert Scoble decides halfway through his vacation to turn on comment moderation. Obviously his conversations... [Read More]
» Social Marketing vs. from Spare Change
I have created a chart to help elucidate the differences between authentic social marketing and the new use of the term to mean "social media marketing." As organizations like Jupiter Research continue to knowingly or unknowingly use the term incorre... [Read More]
» Social Marketing vs. from Spare Change
I have created a chart to help elucidate the differences between authentic social marketing and the new use of the term to mean "social media marketing." As organizations like Jupiter Research continue to knowingly or unknowingly use the term incorre... [Read More]
» Students to Create Chevy's Next Super Bowl Ad from Futurelab's Blog
by:Stefan Kolle GM's previous experiment with consumer generated advertising for the Chevy Tahoe got rather mixed reviews. Personally I think the way they handled it was excellent and showed guts and respect for the consumer. Th... [Read More]
» Social Media Marketing: Who's Full of Hot Air? Who's The Real Deal? from B.L. Ochman's weblog: Internet marketing strategy, social media trends, news and commentary.
By B.L. Ochman These days, everyone and her dog is a social media marketer, or so they tell us. But who’s really an expert? And who’s full of hot air? How do you tell the experts from the snake oil salesmen? Let’s define terms: o Social Media Marketing... [Read More]
» Social Media Marketing: Who's Full of Hot Air? Who's The Real Deal? from B.L. Ochman's weblog: Internet marketing strategy, social media trends, news and commentary.
By B.L. Ochman These days, everyone and her dog is a social media marketer, or so they tell us. But who’s really an expert? And who’s full of hot air? How do you tell the experts from the snake oil salesmen? Let’s define terms: o Social Media Marketing... [Read More]
» Social Media Markeing - whose a real expert? - B.L. Ochman from WebMetricsGuru
Turns out theres not that many real Social Media expertson SocialMedia Marketing (according to Wikipedia: ...Social Media Marketing (SMM) combines the goals of internet marketing with social media sites such as Digg, Flickr, MySp... [Read More]
IMO a far better analysis from Techdirt
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060403/1840222.shtml
The suggestion of getting customer video testimonials is shallow and mundane.
GM is a company that needs to reinvent itself. The same old approaches have not been working.
Furthermore, enabling people to expresss themselves is good for this particular brand. And it benefits the company's credibility.
See my post GM hits credibility high with “negative ads"
That "better way" of users submitting their videos simply reeks of the "old and tired" thinking that has plagued GM marketing for longer I've even forgotten now.
With the notable exception of screening for profane content, GM (and Carat) is absolutely doing the right thing BY DOING NOTHING. That being said, lets not forget that the lack of strong (the typical corporate worrying type) monitoring might not have been intentional. Having worked on numerous campaigns like this for the General (and others), lets just say that when budgets are drawn up, funding for this type of monitoring always seems to be sacrificied in favor of something creative (more concepts basically).
So what are the snarkmongers telling us? That SUV's consume far more natural resources than should be humanely legal? That GM doesn't have an undivided legion of fandom? Anything that anyone doesn't already know? Nope. Something the ads are telling us that we might not know, is that MAYBE GM is finally coming to the grips with the all too important fact that cedeing control to their customers WILL BE A REQUIREMENT of any effective turnaround. Today, GM gets it. Anyone rooting for their comeback can only hope tomorrow holds the same.
According to the contest attempts to "undermine the legitimate operation of the contest may be a violation of criminal and civil laws."
Chevy Tahoe Apprentice campaign was just a deep jump into the consmer generated content ocean, but GM didn't expect it to be so deep. They thought they are going to get arund the shallow waters, where they can control the situation. This wasn't the case. So in the end doesn't it take us to the core - the lack of understanding consumers (?)
If you haven't already, you should check out
http://heavyonthechevy.crispynews.com
It's a Chevy anti-camapign where people can submit, comment and vote on their favourite Chaevy Tahoe parody ads. Worth a look.
It goes to show just how quickly brand backlash can happen these days.
I don't dispute Jackie's points about finding better ways to engage the Tahoe's true believers. However, I think the wave of stories about people "sticking it to GM" overestimate the influence these parody ads will have on others.
The people who would take the time to create a parody ad and the the people who are potentially influenced by such ads were never going to buy the Tahoe anyway.
Furthermore, people who want to buy the Tahoe don't give a damn what those other groups think of them for doing so.
"Furthermore, people who want to buy the Tahoe don't give a damn what those other groups think of them for doing so."
Really?
"General Motors was down 25.9 percent. Their truck sales were down 36.2 percent. Hummer (122.2%) and Saturn (7.1%) were the only brands that had increases in sales. The Saturn increase was from the truck side of the segment."
The NYT ran a story a while back about how Hummer drivers were trying to ditch their cars-- because of EMBARRASSMENT.
We were branded from birth - we can brand right back.
I think Jackie made an important point: WOM is not a mass strategy, it must be targeted to evangelists. The idea of doing a mass campaign and launched on a big network show is what "reeks of old and tired thinking that has plagued GM marketing"
I'm also interested in the comment that Hummer drivers are turning in their cars due to embarrassment. Suburban, Tahoe, Titan, etc. drivers will the next ones embarrassed into trading down -- especially when their friends and neighbors see some of these Tahoe ads such as the one titled "What will you tell your children you drove?" Ouch
Beyond losing control of the ad, GM is losing control of the brand associations with SUVs --and that could be the bigger story in the long run. (see my post at http://blog.cymfony.com/2006/04/controlling_con.html )
Cityzen Jane:
Yes, really. There are several comments at the FastLane blog that help to show why those purchasers won't be influenced by the hype. However, they might make different decisions because of more prosaic things like money.
I backtracked to carlist.com the find the source of the stats cited in your comment - http://www.carlist.com/autonews/2005/autonews_205.html - and found another article that offered up a more convincing reason than embarrasment for the shift in buying behaviour:
"Silke Carty did her homework on this piece and compared the rise in average gas prices to the marketshare of trucks versus cars. In September, 2002 the average gas price was $1.40, the marketshare of trucks was 51 percent and cars were the remaining 49 percent. In September, 2004 the average gas price was $1.87, truck marketshare had grown to 57.9 percent and the car market had shrunk to 42.1 percent. Fast forward to September, 2005, when the gas spike a full dollar over the price in 2004 to reach $2.90. The truck marketshare fell back down to 51.5 percent (September, 2002 levels) and the car market grew to 48.5 percent."
- http://www.carlist.com/autonews/2005/autonews_202.html
For the record - I'm not a fan of SUVs. I drive an Echo - just not for the reasons that the makers of these attack ads might prefer. I am simply happy to know that my total cost of owning the vehicle (lease, insurance, licensing, maintenance and fuel) are less than many people pay for lease alone (or in the case of an SUV owner, gas alone).
Ken - yes people are also trading down for purely financial considerations! I have no complaint about that. It's a trend that I think is not likely to slow down.
Couple of points:
1. I think this is a great blog post about this issue that gives a good synopsis of why it's not THAT bad for GM.
2. I agree with the above article that GM's openness and behavior (i.e. not taking down negative ads) paints them as a group of people, not a cold corporate machine. Kudos to them. If this possibly flawed campaign was the way to get that to happen, so be it.
3. Another commenter said: "I think Jackie made an important point: WOM is not a mass strategy, it must be targeted to evangelists."
I would hope this is NOT what Jackie was saying, considering her book is "CREATING customer evanglists".
4. Personally, I LOVE the idea that that GM opened up this kind of conversation. I think the place that they're failing (or perhaps not taking full benefit) is that they aren't taking a VERY active role in getting involved with the communties talking about the subjects they've raised. The point was to talk about the enviro friendly new Tahoe... they've started the conversation... now what are they doing to truly capitalize on that conversation?
To further expand a bit...
We community/consumer interaction evangalists have been saying that old branding methods are dead, that the best way is to interact with your consumer base. Yes, we'd love it if all of our consumers adored us, if they all were hard core evangelists. But the reality is that some products have haters - SUVs are a great example. So what's the solution? Is it to continue down the path? Is it to open up for only evangalist submissions?
I don't think so - I think it's about starting the conversation that MUST be had, and following where your consumers (AND you) take it. Otherwise, nothing really changes... you're just speaking to the converted, and are mostly hiding behind your evanglists.
Sometimes it takes a heavy conversation and a bit of negativity to get to a better place. Think about the first time a spouse says to an unsuspecting spouse that they're unhappy - sure, it's not a pleasant conversation, but having it is a healthy, productive thing to do.
Kudos to GM (whether it was planned or not) for opening that conversation. Now the key is to see what they do next.
Jake,
Thanks for your comments. To clarify on "WOM as a mass strategy", I would suggest that positive word of mouth is something that everyone wants more of, so it is often better to start word of mouth marketing initiatives with your evangelists first. They will spread the word then to those most receptive to hearing the message.
On GM opening a heavy conversation, I think you are giving GM too much credit here. From my view, the Chevy Tahoe-Apprentice campaign was designed as a promotion tactic to advertise the new 2007 Tahoe. The brand management team probably bought into the idea of "buzz marketing" in asking people to make "commercials" that would promote the brand promises of the 2007 model. The website told you what messages you needed in the commercial and even gave Director's tips on how to produce the commercial.
If GM had wanted to engage in a actual conversation with people, they would have set up other mechanisms: online forums, special feedback blog, in-person roundtables, customer advisory boards, etc. They would have asked questions about how to create better cars and trucks that would address environmental concerns, etc.
I do give them credit for leaving all the negative commercials up. But I agree that what GM does next will show us if they really learned anything at all from this incident.
So having had a chance to chew this issue around a bit, here's what it comes down to in my mind: creating a relationship vs. starting/having a conversation. I blogged at bit about this today, prompted by this discussion. Thanks for the inspiration! :)
