|
Get a peek inside the EMF Conversations - Here is a recent exchange : Experiential Marketing Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts on this trend. "Municipalities are increasingly treating street marketing efforts such as pasting logos on sidewalks or using chalk stencils as if they were graffiti -- and in some cases fining and arresting contractors who are doing the actual work." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704377004575650793095802282.html?mod=WSJ_business_MediaMktNewsBucket ADman Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 19 Posted: 06 Dec 2010 07:04 pm Post subject: Street Stencil Oh, the days when I used to personally apply this stuff with my friends all over San Francisco, New York and LA, is now luckily beyond the statue of limitations. ;) Traded it for creating experiences and wowing people, not cluttering their lives. I, first would argue that this type of thing is not Experiential. Its a static add on the ground. What’s the experience? Definitely, a Guerilla Tactic but not Experiential by itself. Right Erik? Adam Hollander | Brand Marketers 701 7th Ave 9th FL New York, New York 10036
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
moderator Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 387 Posted: 12 Dec 2010 10:54 pm Post subject: Very interesting dialogue, and a very interesting question posed by Adam. Is it experiential? The truth is that everything has the capacity to be experiential. As any advertisement or marketing message can act as an emotional trigger and be the impetus for an emotional response. A response that perhaps wouldn't even be seen by those surrounding the particular individual that was being effected on an emotional level. For conversation's sake. Let's say that the sidewalks were inside of a lab environment. Let's say that there were researchers right there to query the consumers after they interacted with the stencil in their own way. We know that there are so many modalities of experience, but we like to think that experiential marketing appeals to consumers on an emotional level by stimulating some part of their emotional rolodex in a positive way. It's fair to say that some would look at the stencil as art, some would look at it as graffiti and my guess would be that if a consumer had a previous experience with that brand that it would trigger the emotions that were connected to the initial interaction with the brand. So, is it experiential? Everything can be. As experiential marketers it's our jobs to create positive brand experiences where and when our intended audiences will be most receptive to it. As the great French philosopher Camus stated, " We can't create experience we must undergo it." Our intention when we create experiential programs is that we create environments, static and dynamic interactions etc in which the majority of the population would have a response that would allow one to say it was an experiential element. Back to the sidewalk. It's a dated technique, and in most cities people look down upon corporate messaging adorning the sidewalk. I would say in just knowing that one fact - I would stay clear of that tactic. Simplistic stenciling often comes off as intrusive, invasive and utterly bothersome. I wouldn't be able to get past that first box. I couldn't, in good faith, check the box. What we have is a real world scenario. We have a ladder of companies that are each trying to earn money so that they can employ people and keep their doors open. I know the guys at all the companies involved, and I also know that they wouldn't do something intentionally that they thought was ridiculously malicious. Again, back to the real world. The company that actually did the work was the company paid the least. And, I would take a logical guess that if business was extremely robust that they would have politely declined the promotion. I could be wrong. In short, I do and will always believe that the world is our canvas. We simply need to construct programs that we believe will have an extremely positive effect on our clients' businesses. Perhaps, in hindsight, the companies involved now see that and wouldn't do it again? Was it experiential? Perhaps for a few people with a history with the brand. But based on the WSJ story, the one thing we know for certain is that this wasn't the case for the majority of the audience and it actually had the antithesis effect. Leaving a bad taste in people's mouths and it actually turned people off to the brand. What can we learn from this? Maybe that ideas should be thought through and then thought through once again pressed up against the stated objectives of the client's campaign. I bet that nowhere on any of the briefs it stated, " Please piss off the local population." It's always good to learn from these types of things. In the grand scheme of things it isn't anything major. However, when i see things like this it reminds me of a lot of ideas presented to me by other agencies that were much MUCH riskier. I killed them before they ever saw the light of day. It takes someone to stand up and properly advise. Often times I found when I spoke to the agency that had an idea - the simple cons never even crossed their minds. So, I would simply implore the event teams to advise properly and then we'll win and all walk away with big smiles on our faces as everyone builds successful brand together. Erik
|