The Results of Refuting versus Relishing

Remember how Coke refuted the WOM and Mentos relished the WOM from the Diet Coke/Mentos geyser viral video?

Coke refuted the word-of-mouth (WOM) by saying the experiment didn’t fit with the brand personality of Diet Coke and that they wished people would drink the cola and not experiment with it. Mentos, on the other hand, relished the estimated $10 million dollars in exposure from the viral video that cost the company nothing.

But the story didn’t end there. Despite shunning the Diet Coke/Mentos viral video, Coke tried to capitalize on the customer-generated media wave by revamping Coke.com into a groovy, viral video-heavy focused promotion called “The Coke Show.” The intent is to have Coke fans submit customer-created videos for all to see.

Mentos also capitalized on the momentum from the viral video but they decided to ride the wave and partner with YouTube.com to create the “Mentos Geyser Video Contest.” This contest asks people to submit their own video to creatively show what happens when you drop a Mentos into a bottle of 2-liter soda.

The results of Coke refuting and then creating their own thing versus Mentos relishing and creating a promotion that rode the wave of momentum from the Diet Coke/Mentos viral video are startling.

According to an Adweek article from Sept. 4th, “Mentos has attracted over 300 submissions, which have been viewed more than 400,000 times. The Coke Show, which wrapped up its first contest last week, got only 35 videos, with none getting more than 2,000 views.”

Whoa! There’s a big-time lesson to be learned here … capitalize quickly by riding an existing WOM wave and don't try to quickly create your own wave of WOM.

I agree with Walter Carl, Assistant Professor at Northwestern, who says that one way to meaningfully engage with customers is to “Look for WOM that is already happening.”

What if Coke had embraced the Diet Coke/Mentos geyser experiment and encouraged its customers to go beyond drinking the soda to experimenting with its soda. Think the results would have been different? I do. You?

---

UPDATES:
(1) Ed Schipul, of BrandToBeDetermined, smartly riffs off this post by introducing the NIH Syndrome. (NIH stands for “Not Invented Here.”)
(2) Chuqui dives deep into marketing wonk thought by talking about “rolling your own” versus “partnering.”

Comments

[Lewis Green]

I urge someone to interview a Coke Marketing Representative and get their response to this data. I think that part of the story would round out this post and bring us full circle in terms of the case study.

[johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)]

Lewis ... hopes this helps to complete the circle you are urging to have completed.

The Adweek article contains the following insights and comments from Tim Kopp, Coke's VP of Global Interactive Marketing ...

Tim Kopp "said despite initial reports saying Coke was displeased by the videos, that wasn't the case. Instead, it simply decided to continue in its planned marketing direction. 'We're not trying to take advantage of it and commercialize it,' he said."
"Rather than jump on the bandwagon, Kopp said Coca-Cola continued to focus on The Coke Show, a Web site refresh that was already in the works, as its test bed for tapping into consumer media. For the second challenge, it partnered with video blogger Ze Frank for another contest that plays off the theme of a current Coke commercial."

So it looks like Coke has learned it needs to borrow juju from someone/something that has online credibility—ZE FRANK. Hmm … couldn’t they have simply borrowed the credible juju from the Diet Coke/Mentos experiment in the first place?

I think Ed Schipul (see above trackback) nailed it when he said Coke is suffering from the arrogant “NIHilist attitude” of Not Invented Here.