« Continue, Change or Bail | Main | Quantitative Graphics »

Post-Modern Marketing Moments

posted by Eliot Frick Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 1:16 AM
in advertising, integral marketing, theory

A very accomplished, well-known and respected ad guy spoke in St. Louis on Friday. I was in the audience. He was singing the praises of the Mark Ecko/Air Force One stunt. I asked him if the inauthenticity of the stunt (ie. that wasn't really Air Force One) might make peeps feel like they'd been had.

He responded to the effect that it wasn't inauthentic because it fit the brand.

TrackBack
TrackBack URL: http://high.bigwidesky.com/movabletype/mt-neurdependent.cgi/65
comments
commenter:  Matt Jensen
posted:  Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 10:01 AM

The majority of YouTube commenters (a savory bunch) seem to disagree with your very accomplished, well-known and respected ad guy.

Unless, of course, the Ecko brand is "douche".

commenter:  Mike Behr
posted:  Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I think it depends on how you measure it. If the the success of the viral camaign was measured in the fact that it got so much media buzz and the attention of the pentagon, and in doing so, the "establishment" was scammed, then it was a probably a big success with the urban young adults that wear Ecko clothing. If the Ecko consumers and target demographic felt scammed themselves, then it may have made them feel "had" and not had a positive impact on the brand. The scam does seem in line with their brand
http://community.eckounltd.com/community
Guess you would have to get the opinion of the target demographic because thats all that really matters.

commenter:  Eliot Frick
posted:  Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Yeah, sure, it fits their brand. My point was just that I found it ironic that he was signifying "authenticity" in a relativistic, post-modern way, whereas I was signifying "authenticity" as, y'know, not lying.

commenter:  Eliot Frick
posted:  Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 9:28 PM

Per Matt's point about YouTube commenters, here are a few (admittedly cherry picked) comments that redound to my point:

"Marc Ecko is a douche." - fjafjan
"Publicity stunt, there is an interview with him talking about it. Google it." - NSFR
"This is all shit. ecko is a liar" - Joewaymouth
"What a stupid way to waste money.." - nealie
"Dude. Secret service would have shot him on site. Not to mention the fact that the perimiter is secure for 300m around the entireity of the presidential anything. No joke by the way. So Mark Eko, you are a fag." - kororawarrick
"FAKE because Ek is a lamer and cant make money any more" - pewaukee70yahoocom
And what was the other thing he was saying about it? That it was inexpensive. He meant in terms of media buys. He said he bet it cost no more than $100k at the most. I don't know whether he's right about that, but I do know that in this article, Mr. Ecko intimates that it was in fact costly. To wit:
Ecko acknowledged Friday that his company had rented a 747 cargo jet at San Bernardino's airport and covertly painted one side to look like Air Force One. Employees signed secrecy agreements and worked inside a giant hangar until the night the video was made. Ecko declined to say how much the stunt cost.
"It's not cheap," he said. "You have to be rich."
Incidentally, this whole thing speaks to the two theories of word of mouth marketing suggested by John Moore.

Commenting is open and encouraged for all except spammers, whom we intend to roll up in a carpet and throw from a bridge. Enjoy.

HTML Enabled
 
 
© copyright 2006
contact us  |  bigwidesky