The importance of nuances when copying successful marketing campaigns in online communities
Now, many companies use social media marketing to promote their products, services or brand. In the West, this fad began earlier, but here, as usual, everything happens with some delay. Many people begin to copy successful foreign experience, but often successful solutions that have shot “there” remain unnoticed “here” - and all this is due to the fact that “the devil is in the details”. To illustrate this, I would like to use the following example:
Original:
Stormhoek , a small wine producer from South Africa, which entered the UK market in 2003, in the spring of 2005, decided to position its wine as a social communication service - this wine should have been associated with pleasant conversation, communication and social interaction. In addition, the company wanted consumers to be aware of Stormhoek even before going to the store - i.e. consumers had to see somewhere what the bottle looked like and remember it. For this campaign, it was decided to use the blogosphere.
A well-known blogger MacLeod posted a message in his blog stating that any British blogger who wants to try Stormhoek can get a bottle if he writes his address. 100 bloggers responded to this action.
Each of the bloggers received one bottle of Stormhoek with a name sticker, which indicated the URL of his blog. Each bottle was accompanied by a postcard and a "manifesto" signed by MacLeod.
Ideally, bloggers should, of course, mention Stormhoek in their blogs, however, no one specifically asked them to give any comments about this action, both positive and negative.
In addition to promotions for bloggers, Stormhoek has launched its own blog at www.stormhoek.com . The publications discussed various wine themes, including cultivation, the meaning of using screw caps instead of corks and explanations of the topic of freshness. By itself, the blog radiated light, sparkling humor, in accordance with the caricature style of the blog MacLeod'a.
The results, both quantitative and qualitative, turned out to be staggering:
In the future, Stormhoek held its shares in the blogosphere in the United States. As a result, Stormhoek has earned a reputation as a blogger and, to be more precise, an attribute of high-tech Silicon Valley parties. The idea of ​​the Stormhoek campaign was that enjoying wine is a social activity and is best understood by bloggers. ( A full review of this case can be found in the blog of Roman Ravve ).
Copy:
My friend and colleague in the Dengi magazine of the Kommersant Publishing House, Alexey Khodorych , who is also the communications director and co-founder of the Samogon company, announced that starting from March 5, the company will hand over 7 bottles of its product Kosogorov every month Moonshine ”to seven bloggers from the total number who wrote about this drink in their blogs, which will be chosen by an independent jury consisting of famous personalities. In addition to the seven bottles of “Kosogorov Moonshine” in souvenir design, the winners of each month will receive a gift of the “Moonshine Chronicles” book about how the company started and developed, which set itself the goal of releasing the first legal moonshine in history. The idea was to make this prize look like a gratitude to the person who wrote about this drink in his blog, and not as a bribe or bribe. ( By the way, moonshine is really excellent, and I recommend reading the book to anyone who is going to do some business: it helps a lot to take off rose-colored glasses and is very interesting - it is read in one breath ). The meaning of this action seems to be clear - to stimulate the writing of posts about “Kosogorov Samogon” by those bloggers who already drink it, so that their readers can read about this drink and, perhaps, want to buy it.
It seems that the shares of Stormhoek and Kosogorov Samogon are similar - right? However, the rally of moonshiners (by the way, continuing and now), unlike the rally held by Stormhoek, has not yet yielded the expected results. Why did this happen? Let us examine this in detail.
( By the way, in fairness, it should be mentioned that Khodorych did not know anything about Stormhoek and his actions when he launched his own - I told him about Stormhoek after he told me in the editorial board of Kommersant what they came up with for the blogosphere ).
Why are the results so different?
1. “Kosogorov Moonshine” distributes its bottles to the winners of the promotion, who choose among those who wrote a post about their drink, while Stormhoek promised to send a bottle of wine to everyone who communicates his address, without making it a condition to mention it in a blog. Thus, bloggers understand that, most likely, the chances of getting a prize will have only a positive post about "Kosogorov Samogon." And readers of blogs are unlikely to believe in the sincerity of the post, which may have been written in order to receive a prize. Moreover, it is quite possible that this action of “moonshiners” will have a negative effect: any mention of “Kosogorov Samogon” in blogs may begin to be perceived by blog readers as being written for the sake of receiving a prize, and therefore insincere. And although Khodorych says that this action is not similar to the December action of the "Platypus", but it can lead to exactly the same results (if, of course, many people find out about it). Anton Nosik spoke very well about the Utkatos stock at a round table on marketing in social media: "The platypus is a very good store. All the baby food that my child bought brought the Platypus to my home. Even when my wife and I were celebrating the wedding, we took special photos near their store. I constantly advised them to my friends. However, after his promotion, any positive mention in the Utkonos blogs was seen as a paid post, and now even those who genuinely like this store never Praise him on his blog and do not recommend it to their readers. " But Stormhoek, who carried out his action without setting his mention as a condition, did not have a chance to cause negative news from bloggers. And although the “Kosogorov” campaign was conceived as a compliment to bloggers who write about their product anyway, you need to understand how it can be perceived by readers of blogs - they will not particularly understand whether the organizers of the action pursued good goals or not. give a negative.
2. To advertise to the blogosphere about his action, Stormhoek attracted a well-known and popular blogger. The “movershakers” also announced their action in the LJ community ru_kosogorov , which has only 65 participants, and on a number of websites focused on publishing press releases, which (press releases) almost no one reads (the list of sites where the press was posted release is here ). As the organizers of the action are going to convey information about its conduct to a wide range of bloggers? Even if the action was thought out much better, then announcing it to such a small audience immediately deprives it of the chances of success. Or did the authors of this action count on the fact that those bloggers who will take part in it will tell about this action in their posts? But then it would automatically deprive their posts of the trust of their readers (see clause 1), and any mention of this drink in other blogs would make readers who read such posts suspect their authors of being engaged - even those about the action would not hear . Writing a post and announcing that I’m doing this to get 7 bottles of moonshine as a prize means that the blogger sells his reputation for these 7 bottles. It’s not even 33 silver coins, and hardly anyone will go for it - except by stupidity.
3. Stormhoek sent bloggers not just a bottle of their own wine, but a bottle, on the label of which the blog address of the blogger for whom it was intended was written. This bottle is not designed to be drunk - bloggers will hide it in a safe place and will show it to their friends and acquaintances, as well as be sure to photograph and post photos on Flickr and in their blogs, bragging about the bottle of their blog and telling the story about how she came to them. At the same time, no one would even suspect the blogger of engagement - each blogger would boast a bottle with the address of his blog on the label, putting her photos up close. On the contrary - since the action is actually very creative and did not require any mention of it by bloggers, bloggers began to admire with admiration how cleverly the company stimulated the placement of photos of its wine by bloggers.
4. The manifesto, attached to each bottle, written by popular blogger McLeod, who told the blogosphere about this promotion, and dedicated to blogs and communication between people, which is promoted by a bottle of good wine, additionally created Stormhoek as a “wine for bloggers”. And the Stormhoek blog, in which various wine themes — not dedicated to Stormhoek products, by the way — were discussed in a fascinating and humorous way, further strengthened this reputation.
Thus, we see how seemingly small, at first glance, details, lead to a significant difference in the results achieved. I repeat once again that "the devil is in the details." This should be remembered by all those who take well-developed foreign cases as a model for their marketing techniques. And to Alexey Khodorych, I sincerely wish to take into account these comments and conduct the same wonderful action as Stormhoek. Because he is a good man himself, and “Kosogorov Moonshine” is a very worthy drink.
Disclaimer: This article was not written within the framework of participation in the mentioned campaign “Kosogorov Samogon”;), although I wrote it at the request of Alexei Khodorych, who asked me to make a comparative analysis of his marketing campaign with the action Stormhoek.
PS: I am writing an article on marketing in social media for Money magazine, so if someone from the readers of this article has examples of interesting marketing campaigns in online communities, I will be glad to hear about them in the comments.
Original:
Stormhoek , a small wine producer from South Africa, which entered the UK market in 2003, in the spring of 2005, decided to position its wine as a social communication service - this wine should have been associated with pleasant conversation, communication and social interaction. In addition, the company wanted consumers to be aware of Stormhoek even before going to the store - i.e. consumers had to see somewhere what the bottle looked like and remember it. For this campaign, it was decided to use the blogosphere.
A well-known blogger MacLeod posted a message in his blog stating that any British blogger who wants to try Stormhoek can get a bottle if he writes his address. 100 bloggers responded to this action.
Each of the bloggers received one bottle of Stormhoek with a name sticker, which indicated the URL of his blog. Each bottle was accompanied by a postcard and a "manifesto" signed by MacLeod.
Ideally, bloggers should, of course, mention Stormhoek in their blogs, however, no one specifically asked them to give any comments about this action, both positive and negative.
In addition to promotions for bloggers, Stormhoek has launched its own blog at www.stormhoek.com . The publications discussed various wine themes, including cultivation, the meaning of using screw caps instead of corks and explanations of the topic of freshness. By itself, the blog radiated light, sparkling humor, in accordance with the caricature style of the blog MacLeod'a.
The results, both quantitative and qualitative, turned out to be staggering:
- UK Stormhoek wine shop supplies doubled from 50,000 boxes in 2004 to 100,000 boxes in 2005;
- On Flickr alone, more than 600 photos of Stormhoek bottles appeared;
- According to Technorati, Stormhoek was mentioned in more than 2,100 blog postings;
- In 2006, Stormhoek, for its innovative approach to wine marketing, was awarded the prestigious award from the Drinks Business Magazine Award in the nomination for Best Consumer Campaign, and, in this way, much brighter, brands, secured a unique opportunity to light up in the main industry UK magazine.
In the future, Stormhoek held its shares in the blogosphere in the United States. As a result, Stormhoek has earned a reputation as a blogger and, to be more precise, an attribute of high-tech Silicon Valley parties. The idea of ​​the Stormhoek campaign was that enjoying wine is a social activity and is best understood by bloggers. ( A full review of this case can be found in the blog of Roman Ravve ).
Copy:
My friend and colleague in the Dengi magazine of the Kommersant Publishing House, Alexey Khodorych , who is also the communications director and co-founder of the Samogon company, announced that starting from March 5, the company will hand over 7 bottles of its product Kosogorov every month Moonshine ”to seven bloggers from the total number who wrote about this drink in their blogs, which will be chosen by an independent jury consisting of famous personalities. In addition to the seven bottles of “Kosogorov Moonshine” in souvenir design, the winners of each month will receive a gift of the “Moonshine Chronicles” book about how the company started and developed, which set itself the goal of releasing the first legal moonshine in history. The idea was to make this prize look like a gratitude to the person who wrote about this drink in his blog, and not as a bribe or bribe. ( By the way, moonshine is really excellent, and I recommend reading the book to anyone who is going to do some business: it helps a lot to take off rose-colored glasses and is very interesting - it is read in one breath ). The meaning of this action seems to be clear - to stimulate the writing of posts about “Kosogorov Samogon” by those bloggers who already drink it, so that their readers can read about this drink and, perhaps, want to buy it.
It seems that the shares of Stormhoek and Kosogorov Samogon are similar - right? However, the rally of moonshiners (by the way, continuing and now), unlike the rally held by Stormhoek, has not yet yielded the expected results. Why did this happen? Let us examine this in detail.
( By the way, in fairness, it should be mentioned that Khodorych did not know anything about Stormhoek and his actions when he launched his own - I told him about Stormhoek after he told me in the editorial board of Kommersant what they came up with for the blogosphere ).
Why are the results so different?
1. “Kosogorov Moonshine” distributes its bottles to the winners of the promotion, who choose among those who wrote a post about their drink, while Stormhoek promised to send a bottle of wine to everyone who communicates his address, without making it a condition to mention it in a blog. Thus, bloggers understand that, most likely, the chances of getting a prize will have only a positive post about "Kosogorov Samogon." And readers of blogs are unlikely to believe in the sincerity of the post, which may have been written in order to receive a prize. Moreover, it is quite possible that this action of “moonshiners” will have a negative effect: any mention of “Kosogorov Samogon” in blogs may begin to be perceived by blog readers as being written for the sake of receiving a prize, and therefore insincere. And although Khodorych says that this action is not similar to the December action of the "Platypus", but it can lead to exactly the same results (if, of course, many people find out about it). Anton Nosik spoke very well about the Utkatos stock at a round table on marketing in social media: "The platypus is a very good store. All the baby food that my child bought brought the Platypus to my home. Even when my wife and I were celebrating the wedding, we took special photos near their store. I constantly advised them to my friends. However, after his promotion, any positive mention in the Utkonos blogs was seen as a paid post, and now even those who genuinely like this store never Praise him on his blog and do not recommend it to their readers. " But Stormhoek, who carried out his action without setting his mention as a condition, did not have a chance to cause negative news from bloggers. And although the “Kosogorov” campaign was conceived as a compliment to bloggers who write about their product anyway, you need to understand how it can be perceived by readers of blogs - they will not particularly understand whether the organizers of the action pursued good goals or not. give a negative.
2. To advertise to the blogosphere about his action, Stormhoek attracted a well-known and popular blogger. The “movershakers” also announced their action in the LJ community ru_kosogorov , which has only 65 participants, and on a number of websites focused on publishing press releases, which (press releases) almost no one reads (the list of sites where the press was posted release is here ). As the organizers of the action are going to convey information about its conduct to a wide range of bloggers? Even if the action was thought out much better, then announcing it to such a small audience immediately deprives it of the chances of success. Or did the authors of this action count on the fact that those bloggers who will take part in it will tell about this action in their posts? But then it would automatically deprive their posts of the trust of their readers (see clause 1), and any mention of this drink in other blogs would make readers who read such posts suspect their authors of being engaged - even those about the action would not hear . Writing a post and announcing that I’m doing this to get 7 bottles of moonshine as a prize means that the blogger sells his reputation for these 7 bottles. It’s not even 33 silver coins, and hardly anyone will go for it - except by stupidity.
3. Stormhoek sent bloggers not just a bottle of their own wine, but a bottle, on the label of which the blog address of the blogger for whom it was intended was written. This bottle is not designed to be drunk - bloggers will hide it in a safe place and will show it to their friends and acquaintances, as well as be sure to photograph and post photos on Flickr and in their blogs, bragging about the bottle of their blog and telling the story about how she came to them. At the same time, no one would even suspect the blogger of engagement - each blogger would boast a bottle with the address of his blog on the label, putting her photos up close. On the contrary - since the action is actually very creative and did not require any mention of it by bloggers, bloggers began to admire with admiration how cleverly the company stimulated the placement of photos of its wine by bloggers.
4. The manifesto, attached to each bottle, written by popular blogger McLeod, who told the blogosphere about this promotion, and dedicated to blogs and communication between people, which is promoted by a bottle of good wine, additionally created Stormhoek as a “wine for bloggers”. And the Stormhoek blog, in which various wine themes — not dedicated to Stormhoek products, by the way — were discussed in a fascinating and humorous way, further strengthened this reputation.
Thus, we see how seemingly small, at first glance, details, lead to a significant difference in the results achieved. I repeat once again that "the devil is in the details." This should be remembered by all those who take well-developed foreign cases as a model for their marketing techniques. And to Alexey Khodorych, I sincerely wish to take into account these comments and conduct the same wonderful action as Stormhoek. Because he is a good man himself, and “Kosogorov Moonshine” is a very worthy drink.
Disclaimer: This article was not written within the framework of participation in the mentioned campaign “Kosogorov Samogon”;), although I wrote it at the request of Alexei Khodorych, who asked me to make a comparative analysis of his marketing campaign with the action Stormhoek.
PS: I am writing an article on marketing in social media for Money magazine, so if someone from the readers of this article has examples of interesting marketing campaigns in online communities, I will be glad to hear about them in the comments.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/22483/
All Articles