By now most Aussies will have caught wind of Vegemite’s new product launch, which coincided with the AFL Grand Final over the weekend. The product name, which was handpicked from over 40,000 crowdsourced entries, was infamously announced as “iSnack 2.0″. Strange, and perhaps even a little lame, but cause for a groundswell of mass brand trolling and hysteria? I wouldn’t have thought so. But universal condemnation is indeed what eventuated with the emergence of Twitter hashtags, forum threads and a blog dedicated to messages of brand vitriol. Ignoring general consumer sentiment (which can’t be held to account), what disappointed me about the affair was the conduct of many within the marketing industry, who actively fuelled the public slander. Don’t they realise they’re shitting in their own woods…?!?
Image Source – Purpleslog
If you asked 100 marketers working within social media what their biggest challenge was, it’s likely that most would list overcoming management fear in their top three. Quite simply, most marketers are scared stiff of the type of reaction that Kraft and the Vegemite brand has been exposed to over the past couple of days. So they choose to maintain the status quo because it’s the safer option. After all, it’s highly unlikely they’ll get fired for dabbling in social media. But if something went wrong…
As social media marketers we constantly bemoan this attitude. We complain about ‘archaic’ corporate adoption rates, particularly in Australia where we tend to lag a few years behind the rest of the world. We criticise the continued reliance on ‘heritage’ media when consumers are clearly shifting their attention online. Yet we then go and load a double barrel shotgun and aim it at squarely at our foot by aggressively promoting the vegefail meme.
Image Source – fireflythegreat
The Vegemite saga has played out on the most public of stages. Aside from mainstream media coverage, the story has also hit marketing media staples Mumbrella, AdNews and B&T. The question is – just how many more marketing professionals will now bury their head in the sand as a result? After all, if this is how they treat one of Australia’s favourite brands, how can we expect them to treat everyone else?
My Twitter stream is almost exclusively the domain of marketers. And for the past two days there has been one constant – vegefail. Indeed, it seemed as if many were rejoicing in the brand’s perceived failure. And for what? The sake of a cheap laugh. Or the feeling of some level of artificial superiority. “Look everyone. Look how dumb Kraft are… idiots. Anyone got a stone?”
Let’s be clear. There is absolutely nothing intelligent about basking is someone else’s perceived failure. It’s rarely even funny. I guess I’ve probably passed on a fail meme at some point, and I’ve certainly criticised the odd brand, but it’s never been a sport. Which is what the vegefail saga represented by the end. And front and centre of the lynch mob were the very marketers who constantly criticise brands for social media inaction.
Here’s something to ponder – next time you’re having problems convincing a client that social media IS in fact a smart idea, consider whether it was worth contributing to a brand demolition that became national news. You may well have helped hundreds of marketing managers justify their conservative views towards social media.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Hear, hear. I’ve made the same criticisms of other campaigns but have learnt if I am going to criticise, say what I felt was done wrong, how I thought they could have done it better and then mooooove on.
Here here James, I totally agree. As someone who constantly has to educate work colleagues that “social media” and engaging in open discussion/collaboration with our “customers” is not something to be feared, I watched the #vegefail meme in horror.
Apart from pointing our collective finger and laughing, far better would have been to helpfully point out what could have been done better.
Of course, hindsight is a bitch…
@Nathan – I think it’s fine to criticise as long as it’s constructive. Karalee for instance gave an excellent analysis at http://justanotherprblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/not-all-publicity-is-good-publicity-and-isnack-needs-a-2-1-response/
But there was nothing constructive about the large majority of participants in the Vegefail meme. Just a whole lot of people pointing and laughing. Aren’t they smart…
Doh. An edit option for comments would be great
@Matt – Totally agree. The contructive vs destructive commentary probably ran at a 5% to 95% ratio. And perhaps that’s even being generous in allocating 5% to the constructive category. I look forward to explaining to clients that this in fact isn’t normal for the next 2 years.
I think people would have still thought it a stupid name if social media didn’t exist.
The reverse of your argument could actually be true – this case study could serve as a warning to marketing and PR managers that social media will amplify your mistakes, and that if you’re not engaged in that space, the public will have free and open reign on all the commentary – positive or negative.
As social media early adapters, marketing types have a higher skew amongst twitter users etc, but in a few years time they may not, and it’s important for clients to have expectations of poor publicity when they make truly terrible decisions.
Gurmesh, you speak the truth, brother!
This… is so spot on:
“The reverse of your argument could actually be true – this case study could serve as a warning to marketing and PR managers that social media will amplify your mistakes, and that if you’re not engaged in that space, the public will have free and open reign on all the commentary – positive or negative.”
Hi James,
I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment of your post, there is far too much vitriol and derision heaped on brands that don’t ‘get’ digital, or don’t do it properly. Hell, I even run my own newsletter (sporadically these days) based on giving ‘props’ to brands that try stuff.
But #Vegefail is in a different league. They didn’t try social media, in fact, they ignored it, and then some. They didn’t secure URL’s of the brand name (check our isnack2.com and isnack20.com) and they didnt register the twitter name @isnack20, (it’s run by someone with a bizarre sense of humour… that I kind of like).
As much as Australian digital media elites DO jump on brands not getting it right, and discourage others from having a go, in this case, social media, etc, is just the forum in which the derision is expressed. And I think that’s kind of alright. I mean, I’m ranting about this in the office, head in hands, questioning the branding gods, etc, etc. And that’s what’s happening on Twitter and the blogs you mention.
Now, if Kraft had set up a twitter feed, built a blog, a tumblr, a wiki, facebook pages and profiles, then I would hold back on my ravings. I’d probably give them props for trying, but still have a go about the brand name, I mean, iSnack 2.0, seriously?
Kraft and iSnack’s failing here is in branding, not marketing.
In short, the brand sucks and the marketing was shoddy, sort sighted and dated.
The brand is tacky, dated (or will date, depending on your web x.0 mindset) and shows a real misunderstaing of any generation currently in existence, X, Y, Z, baby boomers, et al. It means nothing to the unitiated, and it smacks of try hard-ness and irrelevance to the rest. And that’s where the derision is coming from, albeit using the tools that any organisation serious about branding and marketing should be these days.
Sorry. Rant over.
Morgs
I think you make a valid point. The mistake they made relates to the name though not the channel. In terms of constructive feedback for Kraft:
1. If you are going to run a crowdsourcing exercise then let the crowd chose the winner. Kraft already received negative coverage for using its customers for this naming exercise without providing any kind of prize or compensation.
2. Be authentic in digital channels and consistent with your offline communications, branding etc. – don’t try to be something you are not. I think this applies to this situation in two ways. Firstly, the new name has nothing to do with the heritage of Vegemite, a traditional brand and secondly, you can’t become a credible digital brand by giving your product a ‘me-too’ moniker with an ‘i’ prefix. Show your audience more respect.
3. Garner feedback and test your proposition before going all out on the PR front. Hard to believe that this step was taken here.
Nice post!
It’s interesting how with all the wonderful social media listening devices I am yet to see any data from the experts on the actual extent of negative sentiment.
3 million units sold v TBC social bashing —-> then overlay the target segment (main HH grocery buyer)
It would be great to hear from some brand managers with FMCG data & experience versus an SME who can photoshop a jar.
Morgwn, I think you’re spot on. The name was a crap one, and social media was just a way of venting people’s ideas.
James, I agree that it will make the job of agencies/marketers pushing social media harder. But what I tell clients is this: social media is just an amplifier: do something well, and it will be broadcast far and wide in your favour; do something crap, and it will be slammed on a large scale.
The problem here, evidently, is that Kraft did something that was crap. Simon Garlick put it beautifully when he said ‘it is this sort of thing that makes me ashamed to carry the title of ‘marketer”. They got it wrong, and they deserved the derision – social media just amplified it. When was the last time someone blamed TV for reporting bad news on a brand? It’s not the channel that’s at fault, is it?
It seems you’re suggesting that we should award encouragement points to brands that ‘give it a go’. I’m sure the ROI measurements are all focused on ‘trying really hard’…
Anyway, in this case – as Morgwyn points out – the campaign wasn’t even IN social media, it was the public that took it there. If that’s not a lesson in itself that you need to be a part of it or the conversation will go on without you, I don’t know what is.
@OtherAndrew,
Just one point to make in response to your comment, “When was the last time someone blamed TV for reporting bad news on a brand? It’s not the channel that’s at fault, is it?”
I don’t think ANYONE here is saying that the channel is at fault. Rather, the discussion point here is how marketers in general (as James says, marketers pretty much make up his entire twitter stream) responded to the fail.
And to others questioning “why should we have reacted otherwise, it WAS a major fail after all”, the problem I personally have with the criticisms given is not that there was criticism in the first place; rather, the lack of *constructive* criticism as opposed to the throwing of stones (to bring it back to the post).
This issue here is one that is common to many discussions of social media/marketing. A company can not control what is said about it or its brands in public – it can only participate. But Kraft’s problem is bigger than that.
As Ruth Brown pointed out at Crikey, “instead of paying marketing professionals to come up with something actually good, Kraft had a competition to come up with a name.” (http://bit.ly/1b39gU) Big mistake.
The guy who came up with this trainwreck of a name is a web designer who publicly admitted “It was all a bit tongue-in-cheek, really.” (http://bit.ly/SyJcC) He was taking the piss, and KRAFT DIDN’T NOTICE. Right now I’m seeing this clip on Youtube running through my head (http://bit.ly/JAZEX), with the guy who submitted “iSnack 2.0″ as Wayne, the online community as Garth, and Kraft as Noah the Sponsor.
Noone at Kraft was net-savvy or media-aware to notice that a name like “iSnack 2.0″ was like a sign stuck to its corporate pants saying “KICK ME”. How could this name have ever been taken seriously? Why was the abort button not pressed at the first discussion?
Kraft allowed its own message to contain bollocks like this: “The name Vegemite iSnack2.0 was chosen based on its personal call to action, relevance to snacking and clear identification of a new and different Vegemite to the original. We believe these three components completely encapsulate the new brand.” (http://bit.ly/SyJcC) Personal call to action and relevance to snacking? Do these people live on a different planet where they just watch re-runs of Mad Men all day and give each other high fives for being awesome?
Morgwyn’s comment above is bang on the money. Kraft’s failure here was that it pitched a product at a hip young audience – “a bid by the food conglomerate to align the new product with a younger market — and the “cool” credentials of Apple’s iPod and iPhone” (http://bit.ly/D5yVn) in a way guaranteed to do nothing but piss that market off. Kraft has made no effort at all to PARTICIPATE in the online discussion. This campaign has been a lesson in the importance of social media, because this is what happens when social media are ignored.
A certain amount of ridicule is human nature and I know I’m no more immune to a bit of point-and-laugh behaviour. But I think the constructive vs destructive point is the central issue here.
There is far more worthy discussion to be had in the #vegefail incident as a social media case study. It’s hard to be both a commentator drawing constructive conclusions and also a central participant. But by developing well observed case studies of such social media disasters – and social media successes – marketers can help educate those still unsure how to proceed in this space and overcome those fears.
Hi James, I’m the creator of the iSnack2.com blog… and I’m a marketer. So it would appear that I am a prime target of your post! To be honest, I never thought of the issue in the light you presented it: I first heard about #vegefail while shopping, registered the domain on the bus ride home, and hooked it up to a newly-minted Tumblr blog with the intent of poking fun at some (I believe) seriously bad product strategy.
I disagree with your post. If anything, #vegefail is an example of the delicacy with which one must handle a cherished and established brand. It’s not so much that Kraft chose a stupid name, it’s that they appear to be willing to tarnish an Australian cultural icon with an illogical name that was out of date before it was announced.
And if your Twitter stream was a little broader, you’d see that marketers are hardly alone in gathering around, stones in hand, to give Kraft a good going over. Marketers are also consumers, and consumers are angry at this decision.
I think you’re wrong that some marketers “constantly criticise brands for social media inaction”. The broader theme than “criticising inaction” is “criticising poor social media execution”, and that’s what’s happening with #vegefail, too.
And I don’t think we should mollycoddle the marketing industry by insulating it from the effects it’s likely to feel at the hands of the public when its practitioners make cosmic cockups like iSnack 2.0.
If I was going to hire a marketer, I wouldn’t be hiring one who failed to notice that iSnack2.0 was a terrible, terrible idea. I want a marketer who knows their ass from their elbow, and isn’t afraid to say so.
If social media marketers need to keep quiet about major failures to protect their industry, that’s a worry.
Just because one of the tools used by Kraft was social media does not mean that the criticism of the campaign is directed to, nor should reflect upon, social media. Ditto – just because social media now exists and the people have a voice doesn’t mean that we can all stop marketing because of the fear that someone may voice a negative opinion.
I don’t think that criticising the marketing strategy is shitting in the social media woods. I don’t think that criticising the marketing strategy was shitting in the live events wood either (the name was announced to a live audience in Fed Square apparently). Nor is it shitting in the woods of the TV live-cross.
The critcism is directed towards a campaign that suffered some coitus interruptus (perhaps it could have been heightened and extended by having people vote for the finalists); and for selecting a name that the broader loyal rusted on Vegemite community don’t get.
The two things that have surprised me the most out of all of this is that so many marketers seem to think that any publicity is good publicity. And the premise of this post that we should not criticise the campaign because we may put at risk the take up of social media as a marketing tool.
Re the concern that management may think: “After all, if this is how they treat one of Australia’s favourite brands, how can we expect them to treat everyone else?” -
How the broader community has treated one of Australia’s fav brands is by standing up for it & protecting it against a stupid and ill conceived line extension. In all of this the criticism is directed at the corporation – The Original Vegemite brand is being more firmly embraced. And that embrace is being shared, communicated and promoted via – social media!
James,
That’s not like you to have a crack at social media marketers? : )
I liken Social Media to the music industry, you have brands being creative and pushing ideas out to audiences… you have marketers who didn’t make it as the critics, consumers are the fans… I could go on.
Anyway, I agree it’s pretty shameful when marketers start throwing mud particularly when it’s not exactly clear what’s going on. I flagged this campaign on my blog some time ago, they toy with a beloved product, they ask people not to link to them, then this. How easy would it have been to narrow down a list of top 10 names and have the public vote on it? So, I don’t think we’ve seen the end of this campaign yet.
Social Media is as much about failing and showing how real a brand can be… Weed out the negative industry chatter and I wonder if there would be any online banter at all on this?
yeah we’re quick to shoot down other marketing campaigns.
but weren’t we all praising kraft like a month ago for their crowdsourcing promotion?
seems like you have to execute a perfect social media campaign due to the backchannel. but there’ll never be a perfect campaign and i beileve kraft took a brave step towards engaging social media. you have to experiment, try, fail, succeed, etc..
Thanks everyone for your detailed and passionate comments. I think it’s the type of intelligent debate that has been largely missing to this point. I wont respond to everyone individually as the repetition factor would be significant. So instead I’ll address the core issues raised.
Firstly, let it be known that I’m not trying to attempt to protect brands within social media. If you check out the archive of my blog you’ll find plenty of instances where I’ve criticised brands myself. ANZ and Wrigley’s are 2 brands I’ve taken a swipe at in my last handful of posts. That simply isn’t my agenda.
As I said to Nathan earlier, criticism in fine provided it’s of a constructive nature, particularly from an audience such as marketering professionals. Unfortunately, I have seen little discussion of a constructive nature. Instead, I’ve seen Hitler parody videos being passed around and lame jokes. And I’m sorry Tim but your iSnack blog falls into the same category for me.
I expect more from a professional audience. I’d hope we’re above brand trolling. It’s true that this backlash would have happened regardless. But that doesn’t mean we marketers need to pour petrol on the flames.
I read a lot of blogs within the industry. Many are frustrated with the Australian corporate mentality and hesitancy towards new media channels. But it is the ultimate in hypocrisy to complain about this issue one day, and then fuel that very fear the next.
I think what a lot people in this thread are missing is that what these guys were trying to do was to try and modernise and update an old and established brand and introduce a new product into the market place. I think after reading this thread I think that they’ve been somewhat successful. They’ve stirred up debate, brought attention to the product and its had some viral effect. I personally think the name is lame but I’m totally curious to try it now, who here isn’t? Another question I suppose is how else could it have been done? Did it even have a chance to begin with?
Very good angle on this story. Most companies, especially the larger ones can’t afford to take big risks and with technology that they don’t really understand will naturally make them nervous. A more conservative approach to social media can provide some ROI without the risk of hurting the brand but certainly removes the ability for a viral “big score.”
The lesson here is “don’t try to be cool if you have to take out the risk.” I’ve never seen it work.