Chevy Tahoe's First Mistake
...was underestimating the power of the medium.
So, maybe they thought launching a contest to create a new ad was being hip and edgy. Perhaps they thought of this contest as being a way to be 'viral' online (they certainly have achieved that goal!). I'm not sure, but what they do going forward is where they will either impress me or bore me.
Option #1 - Realization (i.e. starting to 'get' Pinko)
"Gah! People think SUVs are irresponsibly polluting the environment! We thought there were some neo-hippies out there, but we had no idea how many! Maybe we should make a real commitment to developing alternative fuels and producing realistic family-sized vehicles? Let's make this part of our mandate. Maybe we could invite the same community who embarassed us to contribute to this dilemma."
Option #2 - Head in the Sand (i.e. Clueless)
"Quick! Tear down that contest! Screw the internet! Fire that person who came up with this idea! No more interaction! Let's get back to selling SUVs!"
Okay...so a little hyperbole there, but seriously...instead of chocking this up to a bad marketing decision, they could really use the information here. There are a growing number of people who believe that the proliferation of SUVs is getting ridiculous. Does everyone need a vehicle that can climb snowy mountains?
But what SUVs solve for many is a 'cooler' alternative to minivans for their growing families. Toyota came out with the hybrid Hylander, a hugely successful alternative. It's big enough for a growing family and gets a similar fuel mileage to a 4-door Sedan.
And...if Chevy wants to continue to bury it's head in the sand, I would give the advice to stay the heck off the internet...avoid posters and billboards (may become defaced) and do some more direct marketing to people who either:
- Actually climb mountains with their vehicles regularly (Extreme skiiers, Surveyors, etc.); or
- Are like the poor guy with the 'small penis' in the other Chevy Tahoe ad that I can't seem to locate now.
8 Comments:
If Pinko marketing or whatever we're calling it has at its core some honest conversation, well then, what was Chevy thinking? For all their smarmy, insincere BS, at least the oil companies try to win public support by acknowledging, even indirectly, those ugly little truths like global warming and global madness in the name of cheap oil. Not so the car makers except for maybe a little nod from Ford when they're pushing their hybrid Escape (but it's still an SUV).
Now, If I'm Chevy and I'm doing my little Venn Diagram and I'm looking at Tahoe drivers (current and potential) and viral video creators, I'm not seeing a whole lot of overlap. People eager to call BS on Chevy for suggesting that SUVs and the great outdoors can live in harmony? Yeah, I would've guessed there were lots of those folks out there.
I dunno... they succeeded in getting you to link to them, work their brand name into your copy....
Really John? Is 'brand name' the be-all? What is that going to do? Sell more Tahoe's?
I didn't link to them, either. I linked to cnet and youtube.
If marketing is about selling more stuff, then I doubt if I've helped them out.
It's not just using the wrong medium to advertise the product. That would be like running a product benefits ad for, say, Flock in Retiree Monthly magazine.
This is more like putting up big billboards everywhere with a picture of the Tahoe and dangling a can of spraypaint off the bottom of the billboard on a length of rope - it says, "come mess with our message."
Unless you already have the hearts and minds of the audience using that medium, don't let the audience mess with your message.
Sorry to break it to you, but this campaign was genius. Chevy Tahoe was flashed before my eyes five times on that CNET video. FIVE TIMES.
There's no way in the world that I would buy an SUV. I don't even know their names, but now I know the name of ONE of them.
They should just let people make all the negative adverts they want. Their name gets out all the same.
Yup... I agree with Laura. Based on some of the comments in the CNet story, GM seemed well aware of, and comfortable with what was going to happen.
k
I agree, I think it's brilliant. Bad advertising is better than no advertising at all. Not to mention that GM has been remarkably chill about the negative ads. Is it just hubris that they don't even feel the need for image control? Or are they trying to soften the hearts of those who rail against internet censorship (even on private websites)?
Anyway, I've now thought more about GM this morning than I normally think about them in a month, so clearly their job is done.
You guys are stupid!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home