Closer

As branding's flu season is in full swing, lots of companies are betting that getting people to transmit content is the same thing as making them interested in buying a product or service.  Few of these flights of viral fantasy amount to anything more than a virtual sneeze. 

Some are better than others, though.  Sephora's Mistletoe Makeover comes closer to actually selling something. 

The idea is simple: upload a picture of someones face, click on inconsequential Photoshopish outlines of eyes and mouth, and then see the pic rendered with sort-of full clown makeup (or is it Victorian prostitute?) and put on top of a jiggly puppet character.  You can add a short message and then email the "surprise" to a friend or world leader.

A few neat tricks happen along the way.  After dolling up your image, the various products used to harlotitize your face drop down as props on the screen; click on them, and you go to the store page.  You can also choose to buy the entire combination of stuff you used.  And, when you're done, you get a set of lashes or a mini-lipstick as a free gift with any purchase.

My bet is that some sales or operational folks had their say in developing this campaign, more than likely to the chagrin of the branding experts.  God forbid anybody did anything with such viral nonsense other than pass it on; even the hint of relevance of purchase was probably a tisk-tisk capitulation to that irritating brand externality called, er, the real world. 

The uneasy sales/marketing accommodation was an accomplishment, no question, but imagine if it had gone further:

• Consumers could go wild with the makeup.  If the thing is truly supposed to be fun, why limit it to applying a combo that can't look real (the finished pics make faces resemble cadavers, though that's maybe just me)?  Why not let people go nuts applying various items, perhaps incentivizing their behavior with greater discounts for more use (drop-in offers as they play) and/or forwarding?  The pretense that the resulting images are supposed to look good is inane, however much on brand it purports to be.
• Let people give discounts to friends.  Duh.  Wouldn't it be nice if consumers could send discounts to one another (there’s an implicit endorsement in that)?  Why not let it be product-specific, perhaps linked to the campaign artwork?  Prices are going to get slashed in-store about 5 minutes ago, so go ahead and link the discounts to something vaguely resembling a branded interaction.
• Have a life/continuation after the holidays.  This idea that the only time people want to send stupid, useless viral stuff to one another ends the day after Christmas is at best mistaken, and at worst self-desructive.  Shouldn't any communication be the start (or continuation) of an ongoing relationship with consumers?  I have no idea what the creative should be for another dip into the viral vault in, say, February, but I bet there are more than a few possibilities.

Once the holidays are over, there's going to be lots of publicity about the traffic and forwards prompted by various viral campaigns.  I'm sure we’ll hear all about the dancing elves, for instance. 

The important question to ask will be: how did they directly influence and/or support sales?  If the answer is either "it wasn't supposed to" or perhaps simply a shrug, you might want to ask the question of a different vendor when contemplating your next campaign. 

Getting closer to sales impact is a good idea in a bad economy.  Well, in any economy.  Maybe we're talking some branding makeovers in 2009?

Comments

[Zane Safrit]

Wouldn't it have been wonderful if there was any conversation by the audience about any of these products promoted. Now THAT would be a powerful message.

That would be the mark of a brand that gets word-of-mouth, that gets letting go as you reference in your later post, that embraces their customers in the creation and sahring of their products.