SM: I hate to be a broken record, but here is just another example of solid branded entertainment.
In one day, as the featured video on Funny or Die’s home page, “Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Division” has amassed upwards of 135,000 views.
Why is this considered successful? Functioning as a general awareness initiative, the collaboration of A-List actors were able to cohesively integrate the key facts of the Foundation into the overall sketch. By the end of the video, you’ve definitely caught some of the facts and now possess a general understanding of the organization (which is the purpose of an awareness campaign.) Those 135,000 people, who have clicked on the video, opted-in to hearing the Clinton Foundation’s message. What more could a company want from a marketing venture?
In one day, as the featured video on Funny or Die’s home page, “Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Division” has amassed upwards of 135,000 views.
Why is this considered successful? Functioning as a general awareness initiative, the collaboration of A-List actors were able to cohesively integrate the key facts of the Foundation into the overall sketch. By the end of the video, you’ve definitely caught some of the facts and now possess a general understanding of the organization (which is the purpose of an awareness campaign.) Those 135,000 people, who have clicked on the video, opted-in to hearing the Clinton Foundation’s message. What more could a company want from a marketing venture?
PW: This ad is an excellent piece of writing, but it is NOT an awareness campaign. It is a call to action. At the end, they ask you to donate to the fund. The success of this campaign will not be measured on total views, but instead on total GREEN. So, does the message persuade you to donate? Not me. What will the money be used for? The ad barely mentions the past initiatives, and the message is lost under the star power. This is the problem with most celebrity endorsements. Personally, seeing Jack Black improvise a theme song doesn’t make we want to donate, it makes me listen to Tenanious D. (And why is Matt’s head shaved? What his next movie?) For branded celebrity endorsements, the product must at least share as much of the spotlight as the celebrity if not more (See Kobe’s Black Mamba for Nike). Advertisers rarely use celebrities effectively. Think about it like this. If you want to see Kobe Bryant play, the Lakers’ front office makes you pay for a ticket. Same for movie stars. We are willing to pay to see them in action. But, what this? We can see them in action without paying? Oh, you want us to pay (donate) AFTER seeing them? Fat chance.
I loved watching the ad; lots of likeable celebrities and all that. But Mr. Wemmer is wise to point out it's all about the money. I'm assuming the Clinton Foundation paid a pretty penny to get all those actors on board...maybe that money could have been put to better use? I only really needed Jack Black and Kevin Spacey for the needed effect.
ReplyDeleteHey Tyler, thanks for commenting on the blog! As far as money is concerned, Funny or die doesn't generally pay it's actors. (according to this article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007406-2,00.html )
ReplyDeleteWhether the Clinton Foundation paid Funny or Die, I don't know. However,in general, actors will do free work to benefit charities. The press funny or die is getting for having Bill Clinton in an ad makes me think that this was a mutual venture in which no money was exchanged. I will do a little research and if i find otherwise I'll announce it on the blog.