Aqua Teen Hunger Force – One Last Thing
February 5th, 2007
I don’t wanna beat a dead horse, but I can’t let this issue die without giving my two cents. Whether you think that Interference did a great job for their client or were irresponsible, selfish, childish boneheads for their actions, you’d be hard-pressed to disagree with the fact that they helped the rest of the marketing world look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. Seriously:
Do you think that the commuters in Boston like marketers more or less now?
Do you think that the boys and girls at WOMMA are happy that they had to answer questions about marketing ethics all week long? (By the way, I’m pretty sure Interference isn’t a WOMMA member.)
The rest of us that are out there in the trenches trying to educate and win business have to put up with this crap. Hours before this story broke we were sitting in the offices of a potential client talking about a WOM movement. Then we get back home and wonder if a stupid stunt like this will spook them from dipping their toe in the water.
This was the very definition of interruptive marketing. It wasn’t a conversation. It wasn’t listening. It was yelling. Old school “look over here” yelling. And we will all feel the repercussions for some time.
The only good that can come of this is an opportunity to have a conversation about these kind of tactics and help educate clients and marketers about this little thing called ethics and responsibility.
In the meantime, thanks, Interference. For nothing.
Other posts by Spike.
Michael Morton says:
Spike, I’ve been a long-time reader and fan of this blog. I appreciate your two cents, now here is mine.
I’m going to strongly disagree with you. The fact is that the marketers were doing exactly what they were supposed to do, targeting their core audience. I know this because I am a marketer and a casual fan of the show. Their tactic, which was not meant as a bomb hoax, appeals to the viewers of the show.
I am willing to bet that if this irrational bomb scare hadn’t taken place, then marketers would be talking about how original the campaign was. They would be talking about how they put a new twist on guerrilla marketing.
And, Interference is not in the business of making other marketers look good. It’s in the business of generating publicity for its clients.
I love this country. It’s the greatest in the world. But America, or at least Boston’s government, has grown into a nation of frightened children. To me, it’s as simple as that.
That’s my two cents.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:51 amSpike says:
Michael, I truly appreciate the response. We’ll agree to disagree on this one, eh?
The fact is that a bomb-scare did take place.
You’re right that Interference isn’t in the business of making the rest of us look good. But unfortunately we generally all get lumped together when something like this goes wrong. There’s a lot better ways to generate publicity that won’t cause an already anxiety-ridden public to freak out.
Thanks for being a reader and a fan - but especially for disagreeing.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:57 amolivier blanchard says:
What Mike said. Every word.
I’m kind of surprised that you feel that you get lumped into that “evil marketer” category when a marketing campaign goes awry.
Why would you? That’s not the kind of stuff that you guys do.
You don’t feel the same way when most of the Superbowl ads bomb and everyone poo-poos the advertising world, do you? I certainly hope not. (I know, I know, you aren’t an “ad agency”. But you guys still put out your share of advertising. For the sake of argument, let’s be flexible with the semantics for once. You win Addys for crying outloud.)
I would expect that when stuff like this happens, or when ‘60 Minutes’ does an expose on unethical or creepy marketing practices, you would see that as an opportunity to differentiate yourselves from the hacks who generate the bad press. This is the kind of stuff that should help you steer the conversation towards what makes you different and better, right?
I really don’t see what Interference’s completely accidental bomb scare - or guerrilla marketing in general - has anything to do with what Brains on Fire brings to the table.
Photographers shouldn’t feel that their image is being threatened by paparazzis. Athletes who don’t take EPO or steroids shouldn’t feel that their image is being threatened by athletes who do. Honest accounting firms shouldn’t feel that their image is being threatened by the high-profile crooked ones. The same goes for marketing firms, ad agencies, identity companies, and just about every business or occupation out there.
Embrace the fact that you’re better. Let that difference be your banner and your flag instead of… I don’t know… the shroud of uneasiness you’re hinting to. This stuff shouldn’t affect you one bit.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:16 amSpike says:
Ah, there you are.
It’s already been discovered that you and I disagree on this one, but I thank you for the comment.
First off, if you want to lump us into the advertising bucket, that’s fine. It just further proves my point about “lumping.” “Oh, you’ve done ads before, so you’re pretty much like an advertising company.” And you’re one of the more knowledgeable ones in the field who is doing the lumping.
When bad marketing happens, we all are lumped into it. We are a naming and identity company that plays in the WOM world – and if you haven’t noticed, there’s A LOT of lumping that goes on in that realm – no matter if you’re something completely different. Talk to any knowledgeable marketer today about word of mouth marketing and they will refer to the Sony Ericsson campaign that Interference did – this is what sticks in their head. It’s just like the news. The bad news is unfortunately the stuff that people pay attention to and is what sticks in their heads – it’s not always the human interest stories and “good news.” And when one gets called to attention, the rest of the industry is under suspicion by simple association.
It’s not about the opportunity to differentiate ourselves – it’s that we HAVE to.
The fact that there are creepy marketing guys out there is what gets me. When Tyler Hamilton gets busted to taking performance-enhancing drugs, can you really tell me that the public doesn’t question the rest of the team and the professional cyclists as a whole? Now the rest of the team has to spend time and effort trying to dispel that they’re different. They would never do something like that. A seemingly non-issue becomes an issue.
I truly appreciate and respect your views on this one. You make some great points (as always). But, as I said to Michael, we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. If you think it’s good marketing and want to sing their praises, it’s your choice to be associated with Interference and their tactics.
As for me, I’ll pass.
February 5th, 2007 at 11:13 amolivier blanchard says:
Yes, here I am. I’m never far.
I hear ya. I hear ya. No worries. I don’t think anyone’s wrong here. We’re just looking at it from different points of view, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
To be honest, I couldn’t care less about Interference and the work they do, and neither does the public. The story will be forgotten in a week - unlike the Enron scandal, American auto manufacturers’ woes, and other much more damaging and important corporate image crises. It was a slow news week, obviously.
I hope the folks at Interference are enjoying their accidental fifteen minutes, but as far as I can tell, they did nothing unethical with their ATHF campaign, so I can’t really throw any stones their way. (I hope they won’t make me eat my words with a future campaign.)
Would I ever hire them? I don’t know. For very specific clients and projects with a counterculture edge, maybe. I don’t know. Would I go so far as to say I want to be associated with them? No, but I’m not saying I wouldn’t either. Everyone can have a seat at the table as far as I’m concerned. Even counterculture marketers. Perhaps especially so. These guys aren’t necessarily unethical. A bit irresponsible? Sure. Rock and roll? Yep. Effective? Look at what happened last week. Whether we like it or not, they have their place in our world, and I don’t see it as a negative one. At least, they aren’t boring.
Bear in mind that the show they were promoting is kind of subversive, and so was their campaign. The accidental bomb scare aside, I think that it was spot-on for what they were trying to do: Plant the LED signs, let fans of the show find them, and blog about it all on the boards, Myspace, Buzznet*, etc. and get the buzz going. It’s unfortunate that the powers that be at Boston freaked out and turned a harmless underground campaign into a front page event. Michael makes some pretty good points up there.
* Check out the (harmless) Space-Invaders “movement.” It was probably the basis for Interference’s idea: http://www.space-invaders.com/
And while Boston’s overreaction may have made Interference look bad (not to everyone, mind you), it definitely gave ATHF, Adult Swim and Cartoon Network oodles of free publicity.
One of the things I can’t help but notice is that even though the stunt went wrong thanks to the authorities in Boston, it didn’t negatively impact the client - as opposed to really lousy superbowl ads which actually DO hurt clients. That, in my opinion is well worth pointing out.
I totally respect the fact that you don’t agree with us. You and I disagree on a pretty regular basis, but that’s part of the fun.
Hasta,
Olivier
February 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pmJonathan Trenn says:
It seems that Mike and Oliver miss a bit of the point here. Often, when something goes wrong within an industry, the whole industry gets sullied.
What many people forget is that Boston is one of the two cities in which two of the doomed 9/11 planes departed from. So the event had a major local impact.
Some of the things were placed on bridges and overpasses - potentially inviting spots for a terrorist. An overreaction? OK, sure. But still irresponsible. And it hurt our industry.
Of course, Adult Swim’s ratings will now go up, meaning higher rates for advertising, meaning profits for Turner. Weird.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:52 amTom Ehrenfeld says:
Just a quick thought. I couldn’t agree more forcefully with Spike than possible, and I herald him for his restraint in dealing with you morons who fail to see how very wrong this tactic was, and why people should focus on that.
I live in Boston, and spent two hours that day worrying that my teenage daughter, who takes the subway over one of the bridges that was shut down, was in danger of a bomb.
It’s very simple. The people who planned and paid for this campaign made a decision to garner attention for their cartoon by hiring people to place devices under the bridges leading into the city, and right in the heart of it. They chose to do so without securing city permits. They were either intentionally playing off the fact that ours was the city where two of the terrorist planes departed, which is stunning; or they were unaware that they were doing so, which is somewhat inconceivable.
Focus your mind on that process people. I’ve disagreed with Spike in the past, but you should read his comments on this post and elsewhere, where he’s done a nice job of highlighting oh just a handful of what’s so fundamentally wrong with what transpired.
It’s a staggering and profoundly cynical ploy by these folks. Don’t be complicitous.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:11 amdavid benardo says:
ATHF “was” all about WOM. When was the last time you saw a Ignignot Happy Meal?
February 6th, 2007 at 11:48 amAnyway, they should of put them inside of office space and business windows. Any fan of the show could figure out a way to display it . . . then sell it on ebay.
Holiest Earnest says:
I belive that this type of marketing freshens up a stagnat trade and gets even more in touch with the people you are trying to reach.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:54 am