The episode highlights how hard it can be to erase online connections.
Burger
King's clever Facebook marketing application, Whopper Sacrifice,
was disabled on Wednesday after more than 233,000 Facebook "friends"
were sacrificed for free Whoppers. The app's users got a coupon for a free
Angry Whopper if they removed 10 friends from their Facebook friends lists.
It
was a clever stunt, but there was a twist. You see, Facebook users normally don't
see who has "unfriended" them, in accordance with Facebook's efforts
to protect user privacy. Whopper Sacrifice, however, pulled this normally
discreet and secretive process into the open, announcing to John Doe's friends that he just
sacrificed John Smith for a Whopper.
According to Inside Facebook, this behavior prompted Facebook to disable
much of the application's functionality.
When
the application came out, some jokingly interpreted it as pinpointing the value
of Facebook friends at exactly 37
cents--one-tenth the cost
of an Angry Whopper. But anyone who uses social media has long since figured
out that the definition of the word "friend" is changing. I think
Whopper Sacrifice is more interesting for the terrible awkwardness that it
reveals about the connections we make online.
Facebook's
primary value, from my perspective, lies in maintaining what I call
second-string acquaintances. I'm not going to lose touch with my best friend,
my husband, or my sister, and I hardly need to interact with them on Facebook.
But there's a circle of people that I care about and miss but who are beyond my
ordinary ability to stay in touch. Thanks to Facebook, I can find these people, and
I'll always be grateful for the great friendships that I've revived that way.
A
few months ago, Scott Brown wrote,
We scrawl "Friends
Forever" in yearbooks, but we quietly realize, with relief, that some
bonds are meant to be shed, like snakeskin or a Showtime subscription. It's
nature's way of allowing you to change, adapt, evolve, or devolve as you
wish--and freeing you from the exhaustion of multifront friend maintenance . . . That's what made good old-fashioned losing touch so wonderful--friendships,
like long-forgotten photos and mixtapes, would distort and slowly whistle into
oblivion, quite naturally, nothing personal. It was sweet and sad and, though
you'd rarely admit it, necessary.
When
I signed up for Facebook, I swore that I would follow the test of the hug: if I
wouldn't hug you on sight, then I refuse your friend request. This quickly
became awkward and impossible, and my friends list--like most other
people's--filled up with ex-boyfriends, vague acquaintances from high school,
and people from the blogosphere that I really like but would be too nervous to
hug.
I
thought Whopper Sacrifice was a funny app when I saw it, and a clever idea.
Would I rather have a Whopper than have uncomfortable interactions with people
whose faces I don't remember clearly? You bet.
But
I still am not going to unfriend anyone, because if I did, I would've had the guts not to let them onto my list in the first place. A
little free food can't undo the huge social changes that Facebook has created
in my life, but Whopper Sacrifice certainly emphasized them in a funny way.
Comments
Erica Naone gets it exactly right when she talks about the true nature of Facebook as a social medium. "Facebook's primary value…lies in maintaining…second-string acquaintances."
BK and its marketing agency missed the mark. They also missed the need to connect and advance both brands--BK and Facebook--strategically to create a win. And they appear to have missed an executional caveat that's especially important for large international brands--the need to work with your tie-in partners as you're developing your program, not after you go live.
How could things could have been different? The fix was needed early on. In the building stage as ideas were being developed. See "The Act of Criticism vs. The Art of the Critique" at http://tinyurl.com/8z7tus
Paul Hydzik
01/19/2009
Posts:1
> BK and its marketing agency missed the mark.
> They also missed the need to connect
> and advance both brands--BK and Facebook--
> strategically to create a win.
What makes you think so? If the purpose of the app was to exploit a unified front to bring greater "commerce" for both brands, then I agreee -- but considering the failure of this app to do same, I have no evidence that this was indeed the purpose.
And, either way, how does that relate to Erica's assumtion about Facebook's value lying in its connections to second-string acquaintences? By encouraging weeding out the network, it may be making for a stronger, more useful secondary network that may see improved growth and productivity as a result. There may also be tremendous marketing value in studying the nature of what a consumer will sacrifice for your product in a world that's not really as simple as it may look.
Failure? That's kinda hard to judge when nobody's declared the criteria for success, but there are certainly some interesting things revealed by the Whopper Sacrifice and by what people think and do about it.
stein@ctc.co...
01/20/2009
Posts:1
The point where I see a disconnect between Facebook's benefits is the way it is used by different age groups. Just yesterday a colleague shared a link to the dissertation of a recent PhD grad, Danah Boyd, who studied how teens use the site. What she details (it's a bit of a slog--it is a dissertation, after all) is how use of sites like Facebook change between teens in high school, 20-somethings in university, up and coming yuppies and 'mature' adults. Teens do not have a lot of second-string friends -- at their age, everyone in their school, even the ones they're not close to, is terribly important to them. "De-friending" has a much more powerful impact amongst them than it does for 20-somethings, yet this age demo is EXTREMELY important to Burger King (win loyalty when they're teens and they'll be more likely to stay loyal for life).
I think this is where the real disconnect happened. Burger King did not 'get' what the de-friending stunt would really produce emotionally in their core demo, because the people inventing the stunt (both at the agency and in the brand group) are likely in their late 20's or early 30's and were thinking that this was all absolutely hilarious. The same thing happened in Canada with the "Stop cooking with cheese!" campaign. A little old granny shouting the line to parents of a kid who won't move out of the house was funny -- taking it to the extremes they pursued in the follow-up ads just turned off the audience and lost the agency the account. I'd be that the creative team are still slapping their thighs in hysterics over how funny their ideas were, however.
I would agree that their second biggest mistake was treating Facebook like an open, un-regulated channel. How they could make this mistake, after cavalier stunts in the public space have been repeatedly pulled by regulators, is a bit surprising. Yes, any publicity is good publicity (although I still cannot see what benefit the 'wig out' clip had for the client), but in this case the promo clearly would have benefited from running for many weeks, not getting pulled mere days after launch.
kevinlenard
01/20/2009
Posts:4
phydzik
01/20/2009
Posts:1
Paul, thanks for reading, and for continuing the discussion.
Erica Naone
01/21/2009
Posts:43