I can’t help but noticing the Coca-Cola Zero advertisements posted absolutely everywhere. Everywhere I turn there is a Coke Zero advertisement, from posters & magazine ads to TV commercials and T-shirts. In typical Coke manner an $18 million year-long marketing campaign has been launched to support the product. Coke has a long history of launching huge multi-platform marketing campaigns using standardized viral marketing channels. However, in this case Coke has attempted to use the opposite approach via a non-viral series of advertisements. Successful viral campaigns attempt to gain awareness and publicity by using the general population to spread the word about the specific product.
Coke has always been at the fore-front of marketing innovation, and as a consequence has reaped both good and bad results. In accordance with this trend, Coke has attempted to appeal to a more trendy and “cool” demographic by using untested and relatively new marketing channels. As with any new process, there is a significant degree of risk involved in being the first to attempt something. Coke is attempting to use blogs as an inexpensive and far-reaching means of marketing to their designated demographics. In response to Coke’s attempt at this inexpensive marketing source, a number of web bloggers have created spin-off blogs that have targeted the campaign as both foolish and enormously “un-cool”. A 27 year old financial systems analyst from Australia started the counter-blog known as the “Zero Movement Sucks. This website has even gone so far as to sell T-shirts that say “I joined the zero movement and all I got was this lousy brain tumor”.
Coke has been long scrutinized for their aggressive marketing tactics. With the emergence of blog communities, criticism of fortune 500 companies has increased substantially. Jay, the creator of the “Zero Movement Sucks” blog, had this to say about the marketing campaign: “What really struck us was just how cynical it was. Everything about the campaign, from the teaser ads to the hijacking of counter-culture credibility and even the characterisation of its target market, is contrived and insulting”. Though I am not sure if the camping is necessarily insulting, I do agree that the abundant approach to advertising has lost its touch with modern customers. After all, teenagers wish to be different, but not so different that they become out of touch with their own peers.
Jay further comments on Coke’s marketing approach by saying: “The whole point of grassroots campaigns is that they’re driven by passionate people who spread the message. Coke simply launched a website, created backdated content and even hired PR hacks to fill their site with supportive comments. In essence, they’re attempting to buy credibility and buzz.” Now one might think that with $18 million dollars you can buy absolutely anything. Coke, yet again, has proven this statement wrong. Obviously even an absurd amount of money cannot convince customers to buy its products. Backlash in Australia and an abrupt failure in the United States has brought a sad realization to Coke executives that flashy marketing is becoming harder and harder to sell. As Jay so cleverly puts it “this kind of advertising has almost become a trademark of uncreative advertising agencies desperate to gain cut-through to an increasingly apathetic market.” Why is it then that so many large corporations seem to have lost the ability to effectively market their products? What will the future of advertising look like?
If companies cannot simply throw absurd amounts of cash at a product to make them successful, then what will? Well, I would suggest starting off by understanding your market. Though I must give Coke some recognition for acknowledging the tools that the younger demographics are using, the ineffective implementation of this knowledge has led to yet another product failure. With 18 different brands of Coca-Cola being circulated around the world, no wonder consumers are turning to much better product alternatives. An example of this would be Monster Energy drinks. Like its counterparts, Red Bull and Xyience Energy, the success of these products has been due to viral campaigns. This has been done by establishing trust and high communication between customers and ultimately engaging them in a way that is perceived to be more entertainment then advertisement. The ultimate result of Coca-Cola’s unsuccessful attempt at viral marketing has resulted in an $18 million dollar mistake, and again, another blow to Coke’s reputation as a major marketing force. Just think the credibility Coke could receive with an $18 million dollar emphasis on social responsibility. Though the answers to Coke’s problems are not so apparent, one has to think that $18 million dollars has to buy more then secondary viral marketing channels. I used to invest in Coca-Cola stocks, but I quickly realized that there stock is much like there current marketing campaigns: on their way down.
You can check out the Coke Zero and the Zero Movement websites in the blogroll section of this website.
- Steve
No Comments Yet
No comments yet.
