Bridezilla — good or bad marketing?
David Jones from Fleishman-Hillard, who blogs at PR Works, has an interesting post up about the “Bridezilla” video clip, the one that popped up on YouTube and became a viral hit, leading to stories in major newspapers across North America, appearances by the actresses involved on talk shows, and so on. As it turned out, of course, the video wasn’t put together by some struggling actors as a lark, or a resume-enhancer — it was created by Sunsilk, a hair-care subsidiary of consumer products giant Unilever.
Great PR, right? Everyone’s talking about it, Unilever gets its name in the paper and on TV, everybody goes home happy. Except that I kind of feel a little like David seems to (in addition to his post, he commented on a post at Capital C’s blog, since the Toronto shop was involved in creating the ad). Not taken advantage of necessarily — nothing quite so dramatic. This is no Edelman/Wal-Mart situation, at least not as far as I’m concerned. But I still feel that the whole thing was kind of sneaky. In fact, I would have been much happier with the video, oddly enough, if it had come right out at the end and said it was sponsored by Sunsilk, or by Unilever.
At least that would have been authentic, in an inauthentic kind of way (if you follow me). Instead, I was sucked in by the video, then watched as actresses took credit for it — and thought “way to go, that’s the spirit” — until all of a sudden Unilever turned up in stories, and then Sunsilk, and then the real story finally dribbled out. It sounds like there was some confusion as to who was going to claim credit for it, Sunsilk may or may not have tried to distance itself from the video. In any case, by that time I was kind of sick of the whole thing.
Is that a great “word of mouth” or viral marketing experience? I wouldn’t say so. What do you think? Comments are open.
Related posts:
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 5:48 pm)
hey if you want to get in touch with the girls check out http://www.bridezillamedia.com
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pm)
I dont really understand though
This could never have been successfull if the company had its name at the end.
The story I have is that Ingrid Haas met a Sunsilk exec at Hemmingways in Toronto and they came up with the idea. She was hired by Capital C who came up with the “wig out” campaign, and asked her to make a crazy and convincing video of someong “wigging out” about their hair on their wedding day. Ingrid hired the other girls, wrote the script, directed it, and filmed it.
Credit is going in different places because different people diserve different credit.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pm)
J.K., I’ve seen the exact same comment from you at the Capital C blog, at David’s blog and several other places (your first comment, not the second one). That’s called comment spam, and it’s considered to be rude — if you are friends with anyone involved in making the video, do you think that’s a great thing to do for them? You’re a great example of the point I’m trying to make in this post.
As for your second comment, that may very well be the way that things happened. So why not say so up front? I disagree that the clip would never have worked if there was a product name attached. I agree that it would never have been passed around as an example of a real bride freaking out — because it isn’t an example of a real bride freaking out. Pretending that it is, and then telling the truth later, is called tricking the audience, and I’m saying that has risks.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 5:59 pm)
Just trying to let people know hot to contact them.
I’ll stop.
Those happen to be all three
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 6:01 pm)
I think the funny thing is that many people didn’t believe it because it was over the top, while others felt that while it was over the top, it’s possible that a woman would freak out that badly with a bad haircut on her wedding day.
Ultimately the video is pointless to the ad campaign. What the hair company wants is for you to think of that feeling, because I think they’re about to give us a cure.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pm)
I don’t mean it’s pointless to the campaign… I just mean that their only objective was to remind just how bad that feeling can be
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pm)
Okay — maybe I just happened to go to all of the same blogs you made comments on, so it’s still spam but not all that bad.
But you’re still not getting it. Obviously the video isn’t “pointless to the ad campaign,” or the company wouldn’t want you to think of it when they give you “the cure” later, as you put it.
And whether the clip is funny or not is irrelevant. In fact, it’s because the clip was funny that people are likely to feel tricked when they realize it’s part of an ad campaign.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 10:03 pm)
It certainly takes away from something knowing it’s part of an adcampaign, but the new thing it becomes is pretty neat on its own face.
In the short term, its a neat little change from the norm of advertising.
It’s the big change that this may be pointing towards that interests me.. changes in what we watch and how we watch it, etc…
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 11:02 pm)
I’m not convinced that stealth advertising is “neat.” Advertising as entertainment is nothing new. I think all marketers want to have ads that engage, entertain, inform and drive some sort of action.
If you have to market to people subliminally, or by ambushing the consumer-generated-content space with agency-created-content that looks like CGC then perhaps your product isn’t worth doing any marketing for. After all, we should all be talking about the product and not the marketing…that’s usually what the client wants.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 11:18 pm)
what is ‘neat’ is that these girls made a video and so many people saw.
the film company comissioned it… but these girls did EVERYTHING themselves.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 7:30 am)
I’ll give you that one JK. It was a great piece of content.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm)
I found your site while I was looking for information on who the advertiser was behind this video. I remembered hearing that it was a “viral advertising” scheme for some haircare product or another, but despite its cleverness (one remembers the psychotic bride-to-be) the product message is lost. Therefore this particular advertising attempt is a failure.
I’ve been thinking about (and subsequently writing about) the sorts of advertising that do and do not work on me, and will be linking to this article tonight.
(On Feb 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pm)
[…] but can’t, without the assistance of Google, remember what they were promoting. There was the fake video of the bride chopping her hairdo off. There was the Subservient Chicken. There was a local one which was a series of protests against an […]