stAllio!speaks the truth about the Aqua Teen Hunger Force brouhaha. He mentions the news that Turner Broadcasting agreed to pay $2 million to make amends for the bomb scare in Boston, then notes that $2 million is chump change compared to the marketing exposure ATHF got a mere two months before a movie release.
Technorati Tags: Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Turner Broadcasting
Am I the only one who thinks this is something less that acceptable, even admirable? We build a half-billion dollar stadium, and some guy gets to plaster his name on it for a small fee, and we don’t even get the fee! The amount of advertising the FCC permits over the public airwaves has been increased twice in the past twenty-five years; daily life resembles a stock car more every day. Then, because forty people SHOUTING AT ONCE is less effective than sequential screaming IT’S TIME TO MAKE ADVERTISING MORE LIKE INFECTIONS! YEAH! And we’re not even talking about some megalomanic libertarian with a start-up widget factory in his garage, but Turner Effing Television. And people say, “Wow, that was a really inventive idea!” Well, so was the gibbet.
I don’t think the bomb scare was intentional, so Turner can’t be credited with a great idea. Cartoon Network’s Aqua Teen Hunger Force, a low budget affair if I’ve ever seen one, apparently was just planting these light brite Mooninites around various cities hoping to generate buzz. I doubt much buzz would’ve been possible without the overreaction of the Bostonians.
Not much of a segue here, but a couple of books that might be relevant here are from Douglas Rushkoff. One is called “Media Virus” and the other is called “Coercion.” Both deal with how ideas and persuasion get through the media-scape.
Sure enough, Rushkoff was asked to go on ABC’s Nightline with respect to the incident. His brief blog post on the subject here.
riley, of course you’re right that guerilla marketing is, in itself, an enterprise of dubious ethics. there is much to lament about our advertising-laden culture. it’s marketers’ own fault that they have inundated us with so much advertising message that they must try increasingly desperate methods to break through the very noise they created. but this is a separate argument.
the point of my post is that, in sheer marketing terms, despite what the media would have you believe, this campaign was more successful than anyone could ever have hoped, due entirely to the overreaction of boston city officials. if those officials (and media outlets who initially hyped the story) had reacted rationally and critically, this would indeed have been a failed campaign. instead, boston officials freaked out, the story dominated the news for a couple days, and as a result ATHF is probably more popular than ever. turner hit the motherlode.
the actual idea of the campaign wasn’t all that great. it’s pretty much just corporate graffiti. nobody even noticed it for two weeks. it was total luck for turner that boston officials acted the way they did. you couldn’t pull this off on purpose: if turner had intended a bomb scare, that wouldn’t be marketing, it would be terrorism. even the unintentional bomb scare doesn’t make this a great campaign (again, in marketing terms). only the over-the-top reaction of boston officials transformed this from a stupid guerilla campaign to the kind of publicity money can’t buy. the fact that the movie is due out in march is just icing on the top.
Well, stA, I didn’t mean to refer to your analysis but the general reaction as I saw it. Plenty of people having fun at the BPD’s expense, naturally, but near-universal acquiescence on the idea of viral marketing based on the idea that someone whose interests it serves came up with a defense of it. Which I liken to arguing in favor of statutory rape on the grounds that all the hot adult women are already taken.
I would also suggest that however absurd the LE response was, odds are that at least half the people snickering about it had voted Republican at least once post-9/11 based on the treat of terrorist attack. Weren’t the virtues of overreaction vs. complacency a big part of that? Sometimes you get what you wish for, and under the circumstances, no matter how foolish the official reaction, I’d like to see anyone who decides his financial interests trump the law get treated at least as severely as some kid who writes something nasty about his teacher on his MySpace page.
“I’d like to see anyone who decides his financial interests trump the law get treated at least as severely as some kid who writes something nasty about his teacher on his MySpace page.”
but what law was broken here? viral marketing might be distasteful, but i just don’t see what’s illegal about hanging a homemade lite-brite on a wall.
stAllio!,
You wrote:
Maybe a case could be made for trespass to chattels? IANAL, but I think I know of a certain owner of this blog who is one… ;-)