Tag Archives: viral campaign

Alternate truths and statistics

Hmmm…

Time is a factor. I will continue to monitor this, but this does not look like much of a major change from the background levels, certainly not over time.

Of course mentioning this skews the stats, so no reference to the viral marketing campaign nor to the originating site, but you can follow the link here and read the previous views here if this rings any bells.

I have done research and analysis, but not for some time, but these graphs would seem to support my view that although there has been an undoubted spike recently, it has not lasted nor did it have the lasting effect of the first campaign. I have also searched on both potential versions of the retailer’s name as it has an impact on the results (as you can see).

Over 2 months

Over 6 months

As I committed myself to be a nay-sayer from the start, I am monitoring this with interest, but would be very interested to know more about the impact on sales (as opposed to mere “mentions”). I wonder if we’ll ever get these?

Marketing Innoculation

So Threshers and Stormhoek are at it again (no I will not link to it, but I suspect you can find it easily enough) – you can read my previous views here and here.

Having just spent 6 weeks trying to rid my body of an infection, I don’t have the energy to fight a marketing “viral” campaign too, but I think that the consumer “body” will be better able to resist it this time around – although I may be wrong.

My own view is that resistance is low at Christmas, but that at the moment the word of mouth element will be sufficiently dilute for it not to take control. It would be amazing if it did, but there are probably enough deal junkies and gapingvoid ‘disciples’ to spread the word. However, how many times can Hugh do this before he ruins his own credibility and that of the brands he works on?

Let’s wait and see. I suspect the answer will be inconclusive, with a rise in sales to justify the action but not nearly the same impact, vindicating the opponents.

Thresher virus lives to fight again

Hugh MacLeod over at gapingvoid, the architect of the online success of the Stormhoek wine brand, has set the question:

“In short, I think there are enough people out there wiling to have another go at redeeming the coupon one more time, even if this time the story isn’t as newsworthy to break into the mainstream media machine like it did last time.

Thoughts?”

See the full article here

I have left a comment (to be moderated) with my view. Don’t do it!

* I think that the fact that it happened at Christmas, when everyone was pre-disposed to look for a bargain, was the main reason it took off.

* I think that many potential customers for Threshers felt cheated when they understood that the regular discount is 33% and so 40% was not nearly as big a deal as they had expected.

* I think that focusing on price alone is a depressingly familiar, and dead-end, campaign concept.

Having said all this, I should point out that I spoke up in favour of the marketing success of the campaign back in December – it was clever and it was well executed. Doing it again, would tarnish that.

Hugh, Gapingvoid and Stormhoek are all well respected. Surely there is more they could do with this respect they have generated? How about a campaign to support your high street specialist wine shop? What about a plan that educated consumers about South Africa, offering better deals for buying three from that country? What about involving the consumer by getting their feedback on the wines?

There is so much that we do not do to get consumers interested in quality wine, and we do not need to feed that craving for more discounts any further.

So, Mr MacLeod, thoughts?