Share a Coke with… the moronic masses
The most-read story on Mumbrella last year, with not far off 100,000 page views, was a fairly humdrum yarn about the launch of Coca-Cola’s name-on-a-bottle campaign.
The headline, “Coca-Cola puts people’s names on bottles in ‘Share a Coke’ campaign”, though hated by any self-respecting sub-editor, was loved by Google. And in rushed what can be politely described as the public.
“Hey guys has anyone seen a Kitty? I know that I’m like the only one with Kitty as my real name please can someone try and get or even print a kitty please please pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese.”
There were more than 300 comments like this one, interspersed with protests from regular Mumbrella readers wondering what the hell was going on. It felt like an invasion of screeching zombies.
BAM
I still don’t get it. The footy match analogy doesn’ t help/work because it’s unique ‘you’ on screen and thousands of people are watching. This is only a name you share with millions on the planet and once you buy it how many people see it in your possession and are impressed by that? I can’t go on living without knowing why this campaign got real people so excited. There’s something here I’m missing. Lauren?Anybody?
I dislike Coke and it everything it stands for, BUT I couldn’t help taking a photo of my husband holding a bottle with my name on it. Chalk one up to Coke!
I didn’t see a single Noni bottle or can.
I am totally okay with, no, PROUD of this fact. It meant I didn’t contribute to the huge amounts of “ZOMG! MY NAME! ON A BOTTLE/CAN! THANKS COKE!!!” posts in my feed.
NON-conformist-I.
also the brilliant element of the ‘ego’ you spoke about which results in people getting their branded bottles – and uploading a picture to their social media profiles…
the ‘viral element’ was massive
Deep down, everybody wants their name in lights, especially the consuming masses. It’s why Gamification works so well. All people want to do is see their name up on top of the leader board, it makes them feel like a winner. Consumers who tag themselves in a picture of a Coke bottle with their name on it, on Facebook, do so because to them it’s like a trophy.
what was brilliant about the NAB Break-up campaign?
it was a short-term tactic that hurt long-term credibility
“A man’s name is to him the sweetest and most important sound in the English language.” – Dale Carnegie
It’s that simple.
can i have “anonymouswanker” on a bottle PLZ?
The point of being avant-garde is to know what will be popular way up front, perhaps years ahead of the pack. It’s a lonely alien position to be in.
Not brilliant creatively, who cares. It sold product and as a client of ad agencies, that’s what matters. Didn’t hurt the equity & wasn’t untrue to the products positioning.
Brand managers don’t get measured on creativity. Sales pay the bills, the brand managers’ and the agencies.
God, people in advertising are such wankers. The thing sold. Did it suck? yes. But to call the very people — who you often try to trick into buying the shitty product some company overpaid you for your services to do — morons, smacks of arrogance and a touch of irony considering the crap you guys churn out on a regular basis. has anyone seen a tampon ad recently? You call yourselves “creative” when the best ad campaign seen in Australia this year was when Coke put names on bottles. If that’s the peak of creativity I’d giggle at myself next time I tried to call myself a creative.
“small things amuse small minds”
Okay agency wankers – I can’t believe this, but I’ve just read through ALL the comments in the original story. Just you remember that these people pay the bills, and we have to listen to them ALL THE TIME. So suck it up.
Client
Agree completely.
It worked, or so it appears.
And that is the true judge of advertising, PR and communication.
Having an ad with amazing production values, a flawlessly executed flash mob or a clever message are useless if they do not influence hearts and minds.
Well done Coke.
Now let’s move on to the next brilliant campaign – if we can find one!
i dont drink coke
i havent bought one for as long back as i can remember (besides for about 4 weeks ago when i saw one with may name on it)
the novely, impulse, and $3 (or whatever it was) cost – was worth buying a product that i ultimately gave away purely for the social content it allowed me to generate.
We’ve hidden two of the cans in the Ultimo Temple Of Doom studios to see how long it takes to find them. One says JONATHAN. The other says SHIER.
(someone on mumbrella will get that).
I love how on Mumbrella W&K get blasted for their OId Spice campaign being creative, but not shifting product, and Ogilvy get blasted for their Coke campaign shifting product but not being creative enough.
While all the ad wankers sit in the comments section of Mumbrella & CB bagging this campaign & “the moronic masses” (which they don’t seem to think they’re a part of), Coke & their agency decided it might be good business to tap into a pretty fucking basic human behaviour, rather than criticise it…and are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank while the internet thinks they can do better (without actually doing so).
Love it.
Job well done.
And you are still talking about it….
Creative campaigns and effective campaigns are not always the same thing.
While this is perhaps a simple concept, the execution was quite effective and they definitely understand the best approach to their market (i.e. basically EVERYONE)
I really hate drinking cans that say “mate”, yet I’m still drinking them…
I found one with my (real) name on it. I made a bong. Thanks Coke!
I think the Coke campaign was incredibly creative, in that it was so freaking simple. Ever heard the term “beauty of simplicity”?
What Coke has done is they have branded our lives. I don’t shifting product was even part of the goal – short-term, maybe, but in the long-term they have cemented their image as the one of the most recognisable brands in history.
Our names are Coke, our summer is Coke. I think it’s brilliant.
and after all that there was not one can/bottle with the name “mumbrella”!!!