BMW Shoots Viral Piece, Does it Hit or Miss?

Posted on June 25, 2008. Filed under: advertising, blog, Boston, Consumer Generated Content, consumer marketing, DVD, Facebook, iPhone, Michael Durwin, movies, MySpace, new media, User Generated Content, viral marketing, Web 2.0, YouTube | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

BMW movie The Ramp

Earlier this year BMW launched a viral video to promote the launch of it’s new model in the U.S. The video was released as a documentary following the stories of a small Bavarian town named Oberpfaffelbachen. The town’s citizens include a stunt driver, over zealous police chief, event promoter and mayor, trying to save the town from hard financial times. They devise a promotion in which they will launch a 300 horse power BMW 1 Series from a 454 meter (1486.5 feet) ramp from Bavaria, across the Atlantic to the U.S. The town has created an entire festival around the event called Rampenfest. Towns folk are turning their houses into gift shops, town managers are tearing down forests for parking. I won’t give away the ending, but obviously something goes wrong. Not as dramatically as I’d hoped unfortunately.

The quality of the video is excellent, the acting, direction and effects (as subtle as the ramp, as obvious as the teeth) as good as a movie. The video has been seen by millions which can give BMW the opportunity to claim a positive impact, especially considering that it was shot overseas and cost far less than a U.S. 30 second spot. Was it successful? It’s hard to say.

As with any viral, guerilla or virtual advertising, it is hard to judge success. Many still talk about the negative impact of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force guerilla stunt, requiring a payout of 2 million to the city of Boston to cover lawsuits and the cost of our crack bomb squad (who apparently can’t tell the difference between a bomb and a light brite!). The press loves to bring up the GM (Chevy) Yukon promotion run on YouTube. Many people made anti-SUV ads from the audio and video clips GM posted in the make-you-own commercial promotion. This brings us to what determines success.

The GM promotion was considered a failure because of the thousands of ads that were created that shed a positive light on the Yukon, there were a few that were negative. But, is that a bad thing? Most people learn by making mistakes or being told they’re wrong. Negative feedback is just as important, if not more important than positive feedback. How will you know how to improve your product unless people tell you what they DON’T like about it? GM learned that there are alot of people that consider their giant SUV bad for the environment and a gas guzzler. If this prompts them to make eco-friendly, gas-conscious improvements to their vehicles, is that a bad thing for the company or the consumer?

And let’s not forget that with the launch of the BMW campaign, the GM promotion was brought up as a failure again. Really? The Chevy Yukon is mentioned in the press for another car manufacturer’s promotion and that’s a bad thing? Sounds like free press to me. Even when a guerilla or viral campaign can’t be measured in sales or doesn’t have quite the immediate impact a company would hope, there is always the fact that it will continue to keep the brand in the public’s conscience for months and years to come.

Brand visibility is the best way to consider whether or not your viral or guerilla campaign is effective. You can’t often track sales back to a campaign like this or even sign-ups. You may get a solid number of visits to your microsite, but when visitors pull down your video, or assets, or talk about it in their blog, it can be difficult to track especially since those co-opted branding placements end up living for months out of your control.

So, how successful will the BMW campaign be? Well, they millions of viewers at the moment. Add on a few million views of the video once people (like me) download the clip to their iPod/iPhone and show it around, upload it to their YouTube, MySpace, Facebook or blog accounts, hundreds of discussions of it in marketing or news related blogs (where I found it) and then it’s recurring mention every time another automaker or major corporation does a viral or guerilla campaign and it sounds like a success to me.

But BMW knows this. They were arguably one of the first to use viral video not just as a tool to sell cars but a way to engage consumers with their brand, and to redefine their brand as cool. I still have a DVD copy of the BMW Movies from the promotion in 2001. The shorts were directed by Ang Lee, Guy Ritchie, John Woo, Tony Scott, John Frankenheimer and featured Forest Whitakker, Madonna, Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke and others. It received rave reviews at Cannes, from the New York Times, and Time magazine. They very successfully hit their middle-age, married, 150k/yr target.

The new spot however, at least in the words of Marketing VP Jack Pitney, was, rather than target a demographic, to target a psychographic. While most companies want to stick to categorizing their demographics by generation, age and finances, BMW is smart enough to know that they can pull an 8 year old boy and an 58 year old woman into their brand halo just by virtue of the fact that they may share common interests, like flashy cars, or mockumentaries.

Despite my feeling that this viral video may be a bit long for most viewers (35 minutes), I’m fairly certain that the folks at BMW will be pleased with the outcome. And I’m happy to help them broadcast their brand (even though I drive the “other” german car)!

Official Film Site

BMW Films Wikipedia

BMW Films Site (no videos here)

BMW Film “Star” (you can find the rest of the films here as well)

Digg submission where I first found out about the promotion

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Earache My Eye

Posted on July 20, 2007. Filed under: 80s movies, 90s movies, Bose, Boston, Bruce Willis, Cambridge Soundworks, Die Hard, DVD, indie films, movie marketing, movie promotion, movie sound, movie trailer, movies, OnDemand, Robin Williams, sound editing, Toni Collete, tv ad, tv remote |

Dear Hollywood,
When I view the credits at the end of your movies I’m impressed on the number of people working on the film. One thing I wonder about though is the sound crew. Are they really necessary? From the perpective of a rabid movie watcher it seems like they’ve been severely underutilized. I recently watched the Robin Williams, Toni Collete film Night Listener. A good movie by all accounts. I enjoyed watching it. I did not, however, enjoy listening to it. 

Because I’m a bit of a multimedia geek, I have my tuner plugged into an amp powering a set of Cambridge Soundworks speakers and a pair of 80’s Bose home theater speakers as well as using my built in tv speakers.

This set up means I can control my tv speakers with one remote and have another for my stereo system. During the Night Listener I found my self on the couch playing Wyatt Earp. I had a control in each hand. I had to increase the volume to hear dialogue and decrease it every time excitable music or a loud truck came on the screen.

This isn’t the first instance of this I’ve run into. I could complain for days that network commercials and station IDs are considerably louder than their shows. I’m in marketing, I know why they do it. I also understand that networks can control volume levels in commercials and their own station IDs but not in the movies they broadcast. These films are in the hands of the producers just as DVDs and OnDemand features are.

Why then must I double fist all of the movies I watch? I know that directors and producers want to make an impact with loud noises to create a more dynamic movie. I get it. But does their need to be such a contrast between quiet moments and action sequences? In a Die Hard movie, it’s all loud. I can make one adjustment and enjoy the movie. But try watching a drama with some dynamics… it goes from whisper to nuclear blast.

Not only am I in advertising but I’m also a motion graphics artist and animator as well as a long time musician. I understand audio dynamics. I understand dynamics in a story. I understand that using audio or music in particular to enhance scenes is important. What I don’t understand is why it has to be SO dynamic.

I’ve been looking online for a compressor that will work with my setup to reduce the level jumps. I wish I didn’t have to spend hundreds of additional dollars on top of my cable, pay-per-view and DVD costs to be able to enjoy a movie in my home. So, Hollywood, could you either stop editing sound like a bad stock chart or send me a compressor? 

Avid Movie Watcher

p.s. If you want to hear it done right, try some movies from the 90s and previous.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...