So just to summarise the current user generated video contests running in Australia…
We’ve got Doritos chips. First prize – get your ad on telly and win $20k.
And Samboy chips. First prize $5k and YouTube glory.
And now there’s Subway. First prize: $2k and an iPod and get your dance on telly.
ADVERTISEMENT
Be a member to keep reading
Join Mumbrella Pro to access the Mumbrella archive and read our premium analysis of everything under the media and marketing umbrella.
Become a member
Timbo, you are confusing me, one minute you are telling us about the success of the Schweppes ad that went the virals? And now you are having a whinge about too many of these competitions?
What is it about these competition that are getting under your skin so much?
Also, if you mean user generated competitions this would probably include;
So You Think You Can Dance
https://www.youtube.com/thinkyoucandanceaus
Watching tv last night and must’ve seen ads for comps like this stream by one after the next. Problem for those advertisers is that now their brands are all mixed up in my head. Plus the website where I am supposed to enter: http://www.subway-teamdry-chips-island.com simply does not exist 🙁
I think if the crowd-sourced content that’s created ends up being good, and the call for content extends beyond just doing a stupid dance or some other equally inane shit, it works. I sorta agree with you though on the QLD Dream job – the video pitches from people wanting to be selected were for the most part lame – “I think you should choose me because I love travel and I’ve travelled all over the world and I’m well travelled and travel is what I want to do for life and I look cute in a bikini and somehow that makes me interesting and worthy of being paid a 6-figure salary” 🙂
Carlton’s Team Dry (http://www.teamdry.com/) is an interesting one that you missed – the $50k in prize money makes the Subway / Doritos ones look pretty poor (literally). I don’t know how it’s really any different from the campaigns you mentioned above (haven’t given it much thought) but it seems much more authentic.
Hi Julian,
One difference between the make-an-ad-and-go-on-the-telly outbreak and the Schweppes ad that went viral is that the latter was created by one of Australasia’s best creative directors and shot by one of its best directors. There was nothing user-generated about it.
It’s a thing of beauty and a good demonstration of why great ad agencies still have a future.
Whereas the UGC stuff is starting to feel samey. I’m not sure I can take one more primetime ad urging me to get off my backside and make an ad for yet another brand. That’s not my job. I’m just a humble punter innocently trying to watch Underbelly.
That’s not to diss Doritos. They did it when it was original.
Or Samboy. They did it before Doritos started doing it in Australia.
Or Tourism Queensland. That was a new idea.
Or Malibu. Although it’s identical to TQ, they had already thought of it.
But the cumulative effect is that surely there’s no room for any more brands to run any more competitions challenging people to make their ad for them? Please?
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
It was a big stretch trying to link that Schweppes work and UGC together.
I think putting the Tourism QLD into the bucket with the rest of them is a little hard because this is really the first stage of their overall project.
The real gold for them will be finding someone who is smart online and will be able to really make an impact and sell the Great Barrier Reef past this recruitment/PR crazy launch.
Hi Julian,
I’ve only looked at the Aussie/ Kiwis from the last 50. There’s a definite trend towards media savvy – I spotted an ex TV presenter, someone with TV/ sponsorship experience and a commercial photographer.
If anything, the risk is they go for someone who’s too much of a pro, I’d argue. But we’ll see.
And you’re right – TQwere first, and at the heart of it is a brilliant PR idea which happens to use social media to propagate it, rather than just a pure social media play.
But I think the space for contests that involve punters filming themselves in order to win something is about full now…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Hat-tip to @kwylo via Twitter, who points out that Australia Post is currently sponsoring a competition to make a 200 second film about parcels: http://tinyurl.com/dmere8
Tim,
“One difference between the make-an-ad-and-go-on-the-telly outbreak and the Schweppes ad that went viral is that the latter was created by one of Australasia’s best creative directors and shot by one of its best directors. There was nothing user-generated about it.”
sounds to me a bit like
“One difference between hobbyist bloggers and The Australian is that the latter is written by some of Australia’s best journalists. There’s nothing user-generated about it.”
What’s happening here is just the next logical step of the two-point-oh-isation of everything. I’m not saying it’s pretty, but it’s where it’s heading.
I guess this is really a reflection that there’s a lack of good ideas out there … none of these seem particularly wow which is unfortunate as you know the client has paid out the arse for them.
I was sitting in meetings with ‘creatives’ 6-9 months ago and this sort of thing was being thrown around as a magic idea in most sessions … ‘hey lets turn the brand over to the consumer … crowdsourcing is where it’s at etc etc. I know … for this car/watch/bank account that’s aimed at 45 year old women lets setup a twitter account and get aspiring directors to create mini documentaries around using an ATM machine to transfer money between accounts …’ Sigh …
Hi Tom,
If I may, I’d take a third option.
Just as the bloggers vs journalists debate is a bit too simplistic (the short answer is that there’s planty of room for both), I’d argue that the Schweppes film shows that there will be a place for good work made by creative, talented professionals.
Surely those who argue that the future for brands only has room for UGC are as wrong as those who argue that consumers should shut up and listen?
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
This mirrors what I see happening in the States – consumer generated video campaigns are a dime a dozen, and it most cases fail to resonate.
In my opinion this happens because traditional marketing/ad thinkers understand it, when they’re in the business of making ads it makes sense to them to simply apply this to ‘new’ media. But it misses the mark for most brands.
This NY Times piece about one guy who has won more than a dozen of these ‘contests’ shows just how ineffective they are IMO: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10.....video.html
There’s a downturn opportunity here for an agency that hasn’t got much work on. Win a few of these things and that’s a salary.
Tim,
User generated ads are lame. They are lame because they are the result of lazy agencies with a complete lack of understanding on how to use SM as part of a campaign. Despite the braveness of Skittles, this too is lame. Think about it for a minute. What has our industry become when we wet our pants because someone suggests we replace a home page with a Twitter feed. Like all these lame executions, they lack good strategic thinking, they fail to capitalise the true value of social media and they have the life span of a gnat. Let’s get real, let’s see our creatives embrace this thing called digital and develop some intelligent powerful brand building campaigns instead of effortless, mind numbing executions designed to grab headlines. Where is the craft we all love and cherish?
You are spot on Doug.
Hey, I wet my pants over the twitter feed. But this, this UGC storm is just silly. The objective is whack- to get users to make ads? That doesn’t sell product. I’m baffled by what all these brands are trying to achieve.
What a great debate. And one that is raging in many agencies and marketing departments.
The fundamental issue lies in defining the most effective way to build brands in the current media landscape.
The more you can involve someone with your brand, the more they will engage with your brand. The more they engage, the more they will remember – and the more likely they will convert at the next sales driver. Simple really.
A few years back brands were offering people the chance to become famous. The mechanic: If you create a great piece of content that fits with our competition, we will run it on air. Genius. No one had seen UGC before, and the first couple of times it worked fantastically well. As with any good idea, others follow. And then it becomes boring.
More recently we have seen executions that have gone to the next level. Rather than asking people to make content, or do things for the brand, the brand is offering to do the hard work. In the process the brand demonstrates what it stands for, it doesn’t tell people.
Is this not the real shift we should be talking about? Moving away from broadcast messaging to interactive messaging – regardless of medium.
Contagious Magazine recently ran an article ‘Generosity/the secret to modern branding is learning to give instead of take’.
It doesn’t matter if a brand message originates in a blog or in a press ad. If the message is interactive – then the brand is giving to get. That is powerful.
Video competitions aren’t the worst Australian competitions. The competitions that should be getting under your skin are the mobile competitions that are subscription ones. You know, you subscribe and they charge on average $5 to $10 per week.