Tide Loads of Hope: the Final Analysis (side B)

Tide's Twitter-thon has been blogged to death, so I will keep this brief and connect you to some insightful thoughts by others.

(NOTE: This is a dual-blog post covering two aspects of P&G’s “experiment in social media” for Tide; the social side (covered by my colleague Griffin Farley on his blog, Propagation Planning), and the charitable part of the campaign, which I’ll comment on.)

Of everything I've read, one dissenter’s comments stung, probably because of how true they were. Brian Morrissey, digital editor for AdWeek says, “Using charities as a guise for people to do marketing for enormous corporations gives me the creeps. … what happens when we commercialize those bonds?”

I agree. It’s a slippery slope. A conundrum. And I don’t know the answer. This may be the biggest lesson from this experiment. How do we not ruin a good thing by getting our advertising all over it? It’s the biggest danger with Marketing+Good; coming off like the disingenuous manipulators that we are.

It’s an icky feeling. Like when I’m listening to NPR and I hear several sponsorship mentions in a row, then they tell me I’m listening to non-commercial radio. I am? Really? ‘Cuz I just heard 3 ads. It sure doesn’t feel like it.

BMorrissey also asks about donating to Feed America directly, “Why is P&G necessary?” Answer: it’s for the exposure of course. One thing Tide has that Feed America doesn’t is a colossal marketing budget. Tide gets to shine a nice big spotlight on a good cause.

Last point: I understand Tide washing clothes for a relief effort (i.e. Katrina). I don’t get Tide feeding America. Not super strategic.

There’s a great round-up of online reporting of this event, HERE.

For Side A of this Final Analysis, read Griffin’s take on the Social Media aspect of the whole crazy thing, HERE. I'm reading: Tide Loads of Hope: the Final Analysis (side B)Tweet this!