Charlene Li has an interesting post on Chevrolet’s recent foray into social computing:
I’ve got to applaud Chevy Tahoe’s recent foray into social computing with http://www.chevyapprentice.com/. On the site, users can create their own customized video commercial, complete with text and background music. Chevy’s intent was to tie into a recent appearance of the Tahoe on “The Apprentice” and give users an opportunity to be in the director’s chair.
But then, what could be politely construed as a product manager’s nightmare happened –environmentalists used the opportunity to deliver a very different kind of message than what you would normally expect. You can see the results here and here on YouTube…
While some people point to this campaign as an example of the failure of viral marketing and social computing, I think it points to a great success. Our definition of social computing is when technology results in power shifting from institutions (like Chevy) to communities (like customers). By losing that control over the brand experience, Chevy actually brought more people into it — witness the debate over the campaign itself. The environmental and SUV fuel economy debate has always existed outside of the Chevy experience, but by bringing it into chevyapprentice.com, Chevy has harnessed it into a promotional benefit.
So final take away and then a question. If you’re going to participate as a marketer in the social computing arena, you’ve got to have thick skin and be ready to engage in the messy world of your customer’s opinions. Marketers that have the guts to turn over their brand to the public will in the end win over their customers.
And now my question(s): Put yourself in Ed Peper’s shoes. What would you have done differently, and more importantly, what should marketers eager to tap into social computing techniques take away from this campaign?
The social computing trend, including the growth of blogging, shows that there is hunger for less packaged messages and more authentic conversations between companies and consumers.
Consider now the relationship between employers and prospective employees. Employers have traditionally controlled the messages about themselves to the extent that there are only positive comments. Prospective employees know that the universally glowing comments aren’t credible. Similarly, a resume presents a limited, idealized (if not outright false) picture of an individual. Every day I hear complaints from jobseekers and hiring managers alike about how poorly this system works.
Why can’t we introduce openness and authenticity in the conversations between employers and prospective employees? The results may not be as glossy, but I’ll take real and meaningful over glossy any day.
