As with everything, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about things.
Naked Communications’ latest campaign — the social media driven lost jacket affair for Australian fashion label, Witchery, is one of those things. Great concept, but really not there on the execution. I’ll explain why in a moment.
The campaign has already seen some significant criticism from smart folks in the marketing industry — both Tim Longhurst and mUmBRELLA’s Tim Burrowes have done significant analysis of the campaign and generated some interesting conversation. Tailored’s Brendon Sinclair has been brief but scathing.
So, to my perception of this campaign.
I think the concept, which borrows heavily from real life, is very clever. But there’s one problem. It told us fibs. It pretended to be real. It’s not. It aimed deliberately to deceive. The whole campaign sock puppets as reality. And that’s where it breaks down.
In spite of the (frankly belligerent) protestations of Naked’s Adam Ferrier at the abovementioned blog posts, and claims of success for his client, Witchery, this campaign is disingenuous at best and a PR disaster at worst. My view is that it might just lose Naked clients. It’s disrespectful of the (former) audience. It treats them as a group to be deceived rather than a group with whom Witchery and Naked could have had a conversation and really engaged in an effort to build some brand affection and brand loyalty.
In spite of Adam’s note that Naked’s campaigns for clients are there to “build demand led growth”, I very much doubt that this campaign will have that effect. Yes it’s grabbed attention, even in the breathless heritage media. They have attracted eyeballs.
But eyeballs, as we are evermore increasingly aware, are no longer enough. How many of us will consider Witchery’s new men’s line because of this campaign? Conversely, how many of us will remember the campaign because of the fakery and deliberately avoid Witchery? How many of us will tell our friends the same thing?
I know I will.
This campaign had the potential, with a focus on using exactly the same tools, in much the same way — with the added ingredient of honesty and openness — of being a real success for both Witchery and Naked. Of drawing favorable attention rather than the scathing criticism it has.
Clever use of social media as a campaign tool is fine, and I do think Naked’s concept is clever. I don’t however, think the execution was right. Naked has tried too hard with too little attention to the way social media actually works. They assumed they could go viral and take the win.
Wrong.
I’ve been saying to any of the agency folks I know that will listen to me that agencies need to pay more attention to the way social media works and the way communities behave in the face of social media. I’ve said on more than one occasion that the agencies, in spite of best intentions, should be much more careful about how social media gets included in their business and their campaigns. I’m saying it again now — it’s not enough to just include this stuff in campaigns. You need expert opinion and advice fed into your strategy. Here in Australia there are probably half a dozen independent expert voices (me, Laurel, Lee, Trevor, etc.) who would be happy to help you. On top of that, there are a couple of agencies who are specialising in social media driven marketing.
If that sounds like a bit of a pitch, it is. I’d love to be helping agencies with this sort of learning and thinking. But I’m equally happy if it’s the others in that list that are doing it. Karma, baby.
But seriously, wouldn’t Naked have been better off to get one or two days advice from one of these independent expert voices and not messed this up? Frankly it’d save them money and maybe make sure the campaign didn’t backfire as it looks to have this time.
UPDATE: Blatantly disingenuous mea culpa published, trying to maintain the campaign. Oh dear, why do these people not learn? It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall during the conversation that resulted in this.
mUmBRELLA and Marketing is a dirty word pick over the bones. If Naked are still advising on this, Witchery should drop them like a hot potato and ask for their money back. Both Naked and Witchery look very, very silly now. Naked continues to flog the dead horse, trying to justify themselves.







Jan 21, 2009 @ 12:19:59
It was only a month ago that numerous social media commentators were predicting 2009 to be the year when the Australian social media scene evolves to the ‘next level’.
The Naked Communications — Witchery video and the Tourism Queensland stunt only further stimulates mistrust in the online environment and adds unnecessary barriers to transforming social media’s potential into reality.
I work for an Australian corporation (Telstra) and my job is focusing on how we can engage in social media to create a more meaningful relationship with customers.
While I support Australian corporations getting more involved in social media, my personal appeal is that corporations do so in a manner that’s transparent and honest.
Mike Hickinbotham
PS – here’s my latest post correcting the record with regards to the SMH Witchery story:
http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/blogs/the-scrum/telstra-uses-social-media-to-add-value-to-the-community-029
Jan 21, 2009 @ 12:23:01
Hey Stephen
Thanks for a really interesting and topical post. I agree with pretty much everything you said and the links were really interesting.
While I understand that the experts you listed are top of this field and could offer some great strategy advice, I think the sort of mistakes exemplified by the latest Witchery and Tourism Qld campaigns can be avoided by some common sense. As you say, most people who have watched these videos immediately sense a lack of authenticity. Again, like you, I think that (both) the campaign ideas are great, but that the execution has cheapened an otherwise great creative campaign.
These campaigns make it look so much harder to manage a social media campaign that it actually should be. It doesn’t take an expert, rather some social intelligence and a willingness to engage authentically.
Jan 21, 2009 @ 12:43:53
@Andy, yes the folks I listed know what they are talking about. Interestingly, we don’t always charge for our advice. I was one of several people who has a long conversation with the guys from Big Pond and Now We Are Talking last year. It was over drinks and some food.
The advice we gave them then has largely been implemented. It’d be interesting for those folks to slip me a perceived dollar value of what they have achieved since then.
I’m always happy to get paid for work, obviously. But I’m also happy to simply be a teacher and help people understand better. Particularly if I can hold the example up here and show its value. If only that paid the bills.
Jan 21, 2009 @ 12:46:45
At the end of the day, prior to this “stunt”, how many people were aware that Witchery actually _has_ a men’s line?
Success comes in many forms, and yes, building brand trust is important, and social media (used properly) is also important. BUT, it is not the _only_ method of advertising, nor is it the saviour for all brands. Different brands and different campaigns have different objectives.
I highly doubt that anybody at Naked or Witchery thought “hey, you know what, if we made this fake video, we could build a whole community around it, and then get people really involved and engaged with the whole brand”.
It was a way to launch a line, and promote a product. No different from a stunt held in Martin Place or Fed Square.
The believability of the content is up to the individual spectator.
Jan 21, 2009 @ 13:00:15
@Damian, you’re right about campaigns having different objectives.
But given the type of campaign they chose to run here, using social media, trust and conversation become a critical component of the campaign. If it had been a regular TV ad on the same lines (man and girl in cafe, jacket lost, etc.) it would have been a nice little piece of storytelling. Maybe even with the potential for a longer term life like the famous Nescafe campaign of several years back. If that had been the case, it might even have been quite the success.
But what has happened is quite the opposite — lots of attention, but none of good.
Naked chose the right concepts and executed very badly. They have won themselves and Witchery no friends.
gkoya
Jan 21, 2009 @ 14:50:24
Is everything fake?…
Why strive for authenticity?
Because authentic stories tell themselves, over and over, without needing to be propped up.
Any agency worth its salt can make a viral-style campaign that’s really convincing.
Make it rough, by using actual amateur D…
Jan 21, 2009 @ 15:31:44
There is so much to speak about re: the intent and execution of this campaign. As Damian ‘writely’ says — We now know that Witchery has a menswear line…true, but we also know that Wayne Carey physically assaults women?
With our work on Personal Branding, I speak about visibility being more important than ability, but I never say that ability is not important!
In the case of Witchery and Naked, great emphasis was placed on visibility, and whilst I have not seen the numbers, I can only assume the ‘metrics’ were better than a typical campaign (ROI was probably pretty decent also, even with the paid actress).
The great faux pas that Naked and Witchery made was involving so many people emotionally…stories involving love always evoke an emotion within a target audience; people want to believe fairy tales and love stories! To then ‘drop’ these people and ‘kill’ the fairy tale will not endear the Witchery Brand to them me thinks.
Time will tell — good to see us having conversations on the subject. Naked will be happy with this conversation, but I am not convinced it will encourage people who do not wear Witchery to now wear it…it may just get them in the door for a look — and ‘lookers’ does not maketh sales!
Jan 21, 2009 @ 15:55:23
Great post Stephen– and spot on.
What all of this reveals to me is that we can utterly bury the idea that “all publicity is good publicity” that Damian alludes to. We hate fake, we hate being lied to and we hate being treated like idiots and we vote with out feet.
The reality is, they were close to a good idea, but missed it. Look at the QLD ultimate job “scandal” A “traditional” agency comes up with a killer idea and then spends all their social media currency on idiocy with a fake youtube video. Where was their in house digital media guy screaming “this is dumb. D-diggity-dumb”?
It’s just another example of “legacy agencies” reaching too far outside their true field of expertise. I see lots of examples of digital reaching out to traditional, but few examples going the other way.
Incidents like this just show that it’s more important than ever to ask and then listen to a digital media strategist.
Tom
Jan 21, 2009 @ 18:10:14
Funnily enough, I heard from one of their staffers today that not only have they taken calls from a few nutters slagging them off, but also two new clients who’ve called after seeing the campaign unfold!
How the blogosphere views Naked’s fake video episode - and YouTube viewers start posting their responses « mUmBRELLA
Jan 21, 2009 @ 22:44:43
[…] acidlabs blog argues that the idea was a valid one, saying: “I think the concept, which borrows heavily from real life, is very clever. But […]
Jan 23, 2009 @ 03:57:06
An interesting post, and I’ve been following the whole issue of social media fakery recently which I always think is bad long term.
As I’m not Australian, I’m not 100% au fait with the brands and circumstances but I do obviously know Naked, which is an agency that’s very good at what it does.…which is why putting someone up to pretend to be Joe Public surprised me a little bit.
It seems a bit lazy and for the some of the reasons mentioned here ultimately counter productive.
Jan 25, 2009 @ 12:35:55
Hi Steve,
good article. I am not sure I ever expected good old fashioned mainstream interruption Marketing 1.0 to tell me the truth or not try sneaky stuff like this — I think that it is to be abhorred, and declaimed, yet expected at the same time.
…because if they got it, they would mostly clean up their desks and go home
Cheers, Andrew
Jan 29, 2009 @ 14:32:10
Steve, good post. But having read much of the commentary on these incidents (Witchery, Qld Tourism etc) I’m not sure what all the fuss is about.
Firstly, it’s not like marketing and advertising have not been misleading in the past (not *all* of marketing and advertising, of course).
Secondly, I think you’re all giving too much credit to the target audience in both these cases; they’re not as smart as all the people who have been critically monitoring what’s going on. Do you think the gals, and now guys, that shop at Witchery read these blogs? do you think they know anything about the controversy the campaigns have caused? and most importantly do you think they care?
Personally, I think the answer to all three is no. There’s been hype, people know about the brand, they will shop there. They’re unlikely to get all uppity about disingenuous use of social media and “boycott” the client as the angry geeks demand
Jan 29, 2009 @ 14:49:24
Patrick, I think you’re possibly right about the average customer. They may not care. But then again, some (maybe enough) do.
I think the issue is less about the campaign and more about the approach. More than one person from an agency I’ve spoken to (some of whom have done business with Naked in the past) think that the tactics used are bad for the industry generally. Also, the defence of the campaign by Naked suggests (not my words BTW), that the campaign was “all about the agency attracting attention and not about the client”.
There’s the rub.
Jan 29, 2009 @ 14:52:50
Agree with you Stephen. It adheres to a line a cantankerous Art Director at an ad agency once said to me “We don’t do ads that win awards and sell fuck all!”
Tom
Jan 29, 2009 @ 15:59:48
That doesn’t sound like an AD to me!