I have to say, I am enjoying the controversy and media attention that has snowballed over the past week as two now infamous viral stunts have unraveled and become exposed. Tourism Queensland successfully generated free global publicity from their so called ‘mistake’ related to ‘the best job in the world‘, and it’s now official that the Naked clothing line from Witchery are in fact the modern day Cinderella… only after receiving significant prime television coverage, Nationwide press and became the latest hot blog topic to trot.
With the media’s spin that we as marketers should be ashamed for sneaking our brands into the lives of unsuspecting consumers, it has made me wonder; where do we draw the line between developing innovative ways to engage the increasingly indifferent consumer, and propping up the stereotype of advertising seen as simply shallow sales antics? Are we risking the trust of our bloodline with reckless and deceptive acts? Or is this the evolution of the traditional PR stunt gone viral?
In this technology-driven and busy world we exist in, it is a necessity for survival that we place our brands firmly in the eye of the world where possible, and granted these recent events have done just that, but what are the long term costs which result, if any? Are we helping or hindering our brands? Or will these stunts just become ‘yesterday’s news’?
Further to your point Stacey, it has made me think back to my uni lectures (not that long ago for me) when achieving the ability to pull off an online viral ’stunt’ was considered the holy grail of marketing, let alone on a national or international level.
I was so proud of our fellow marketers when I saw the Tourism Queensland campaign mentioned on one of my favourite US technology-geek blogs (despite the fact the campaign was from a competitor).
Are online virals really that invasive or did people feel the same way when billboards started popping up around town, or ads on the radio stations?