Burger King P’wns McDonalds in Viral Video
When we weren’t having “my dad can beat up your dad” debates as children, we had the “Burger King versus McDonalds” debate. Of course, now I go wherever my kids tell me because they’re not going to eat a thing anyway until the meal toys are edible.
But the WillVideoForFood 2008 “Fast Food Online-Video Award” goes to… Burger King. Don’t get me wrong- the freaky masked Burger King’s appearances in TV ads gave me Wes Craven nightmares too. But at least the brand’s recent online-video campaign “Cavalcade” makes sense (and I’m not even a Family Guy addict).
Seriously- this McDonalds “The Reality House” series is a classic example of a brand’s futile attempt to develop its own content on a desert island… it’s as tired as the old lady rapping. It’s as perplexing as McDonald’s first commercial. Contrast that with Burger King’s Seth MacFarlane Cavalcade program, which was a smart use of YouTube, a visible and high-engagement promotion for Burger King, and a brilliant way to leverage a known creator while “fishing where the fish are.” The deal involved a generous check to Seth (not to mention that the deal grew his own onlie audience), a healthy InVideo and homepage BK media spend on YouTube, and brief pre-roll promotion that didn’t interfere with the entertainment- in fact it was illustrated by Seth (or more likely outsourced child cartoonists that got axed by Martha Stewart).
For the love of God, agencies, please stop trying to create custom-branded programming with names like Menuaire, or expensive microsites packed with overly-baked video content. The result is that nobody cares, and then giant media budgets must be diverted to drive traffic to easily forgotten destination sites. If you’re buying Dove banner ads to engage consumers around natural beauty, that makes some sense (as long as you don’t run ’em against uploaded Ax ads). But please don’t promote a Dove web series written by frustrated screen writers slaving helplessly under the oppresive reign of a thick-accented agency creative executive with bad breath and untreated ADHD.
I’d rather see those ad dollars getting us to eat more burgers. I’m all about engaging customers with entertainment, but do it with people that know the medium or have proven they can draw a crowd. And put the billboards on a highway rather than erecting giant signs that say, “exit here to watch a mildly entertaining advertisement.”
When P&G wanted to access stay-at-home moms, they didn’t started a new branded entertainment network scripted by brand managers that spent more time with their heads in excel sheets than facing television sets. They convinced the big networks to write soap operas, left the writes alone to hydrate the insatiable drama thirst of moms, and jammed the shows full of ads. Today’s version might have involve product integration (her tragic car accident was a result of restless knee syndrome), but the model is fairly time-tested and simple:
- Promotion takes a quiet backseat to novel entertainment or nobody engages
- The content goes where people are already hanging… it’s extremely hard to compel someone to leave YouTube for advertainment.
- Leverage people who know the medium and have proven they can draw crowds in online-video (or in Seth’s case, leverage recognizable equity from television).
Just because entry costs to content production have dropped doesn’t mean brands should become entertainers. The result is often like watching a wedding slide show with cheesy Powerpoint transitions and random dissolves. Or that flier that screams “hey- I just learned desktop publishing, and look how many fonts and clip art I squeezed onto an 8.5×11!”
Okay, this completely has nothing to do with this post, but Nalts, are you actually in London right now? Or did Twitter do me wrong?
And if you are, what the heck are you doing there??
@1-yep in London for the day job. Totally can’t remember what time or day it is, much less what part of the world I’m in. And the TV blows here. I thought the Brits had funny TV.
They both suck ass compared to In-n-Out Burger. Not only does their food kick ass, they have memorable advertising. There is no video that can be made that’s cooler than their bumper stickers. When you cut the “b” and “r” off burger on the sticker it says “In-n-Out urge”. To this day that still makes me giggle.
NutCheese said it all! I only wish I still was on the west coast to enjoy In-n-Out. 🙁
They use to be my client years ago which took me west at least 1 time a month to get my burger fix.
I’m in San Jose.
I recently crapped my pants at a McDonalds, so I’m kind of on the outs with them right now.
I agree on all points. Advertisers need to quit trying to drag the animals from the watering hole and just put their product in the water.
Wait, does that make any sense? Oh well, nevermind.
I miss In-n-Out Burgers!
And those flyers that screamed “hey- I just learned desktop publishing, and look how many fonts and clip art I squeezed onto an 8.5×11!” I miss those. But I miss In-n-Out burgers more. There was this place in Culver City; every Friday night I got an In-n-Out there. To go. With a couple of jalapenos on the side. I’d sit in my truck and burn and bite. I drooled like Homer Simpson. Still have the stains on my dashboard. Damn that was a good burger!
I don’t eat that crap, but I did offer to buy Seth lunch at Burger King.
I completely agree that marketers should post to YouTube instead of building their own microsites. At the same time, I suspect YouTube’s ever-increasing restrictions will force content creators to build their own sites.
Could that ingress of marketers and egress of creators leave YouTube with nothing but marketers?
@10 it’s going that way – some new circus has to pop up soon, opportunity is knocking…
Ning took a little bite out of You Tube. I figure they knew something else would come along eventually so they secured their spot by gathering a pretty impressive group of large corporate sponsors. I suspect there are more to come.
Who would have thought to stop the copyright theft all you had to do was build big off the backs of the little guy, then make them move on by pissing them off and squeezing them out? That’s never happen before in business 😉
You Tubes job as a subsidiary of Google is to make money and keep stock holders happy. It’s nothing personal, just business.
Truthfully, is anyone really surprised?
^jis
I think the recent shutting down/paring back of major video hosting sites such as AOL Video, BrightCove, Revver and Veoh has emboldened Google to weed out the goofy goobers clogging up the airwaves on YT. I for one think there is WAAAY too much gaiety on YouTube and don’t want my grandchildren exposed to it. I believe advertisers agree.
gaiety? As in happy little kitty cats or homosexuals?
Why would you let kids watch You Tube anyway? The last thing a kid needs is a computer.
Marquis,
I think you spelled “gaiety” wrong. It should have been “homosexuality.”
^ Man, I was waaaaaay off in my spelling!