There was allegedly a mystery shampoo.

It was blaring on television.

It was on ‘supposed’ freebie-test centers in leading malls in Indian metros.

And it was also allegedly on social networking sites, if you take Times of India’s word for it. Times of India’s city supplement says,

“They (actresses, Katrina Kaif, Neha Dhupia and Shilpa Shetty) have been raving about the results on leading social networking websites. Not just these actresses, who are the beauty productΓ’??s brand ambassadors, but even women from Mumbai and Delhi, who tried the shampoo, posted pictures of their hair transformation online for everyone to see”

Err, do they mean, on Facebook?

pantene1

Ok, I’ve gone beyond ridiculing numbers and they are indeed fickle and can be ‘bought’ by advertising spend online – but 751 members being fed unidimensional brand plugs is not a social media campaign – it is a mass media, television style discourse, merely using a social media tool.

If they are referring to Neha Dhupia and Shilpa Shetty’s twitter updates – to a combined follower count of 200,000+ people – think about it! How different is it from shooting an ad with these actresses and playing it on television?

In other words, Neha Dhupia and Shilpa Shetty’s personal media outlets (on Twitter) were included in the media buying activity – as blunt as that.

And what do they post? This,

Oh btw,using this new shampoo (@mystery_shampoo)totally works for me.Recently signed up to endorse it, glad I did!Ull c the ad soon;) (Shilpa Shetty)

Morning all u lovely women out there… re u trying the mystery_shampoo ! I hope it works wonders on ur hair, jus the way it did for me! (Neha Dhupia)

Yeah right – very convincing!

And, if I was allowed a minor quibble – @mystery_shampoo does not seem to exist, even as it is prominently displayed in the official website’s Indian version.

So, has it really come to that now? In the name of ‘social media campaign’, social media (sic) is being used as just one of the media buying options where brands can ‘buy’ their way through people’s attention? Well, let’s see how it works for a low-involvement, low-engagement product like shampoo that people do not think twice before shifting to another brand.

Where is the use of participation from people? If you refer to the Facebook photos of aam-junta posing with their freshly-washed hair…well, if you’re strolling in a mall and a ‘brand’ calls you to test something free and explains that you may be on their Facebook page…what are the chances that at least 10% of the jobless, bored or amused crowd says yes? Well, of course, they will! Is that social media engagement just because their photos are up on Facebook now?

Incidentally, the brand that has gained the most out of all this – by Pantene – is Dove! Their ambush marketing attempt at derailing the ‘mystery’ built by Pantene is absolutely brilliant on-the-foot thinking, with super timing!

So, while the official announcement of Pantene’s big-reveal was slated to be on August 1 (as per the website) – it has been forcefully revealed on July 31st, thanks to Dove!

paneten2

The nuanced effort of Dove even extends to the way they have taken this war on print – Times of India’s city supplement has the big reveal today, while Dove steals the show with a half-faux cover in the same publication…in turn, making Pantene’s reveal…secondary!

pantene3

I don’t need to say anything about Dove’s more abrasive attempts at hijacking the Pantene campaign – like, on billboards! See this, for instance!

137670112

Billboard twitpic by tobyfoy.

Comments

comments

19 thoughts on “The televisionization of social media

  1. Karthik,
    There is a big debate on whether Advertisements in social networking sites has any value and if it adds revenue to facebook ( unlike google ad sense ) . In this whole process, all it takes for pantene is to setup a facebook profile and have something catchy for engaging the end users.

    In the west lot of celebrities are paid for the tweeting about products . And worse, there are agencies which can bring in followers for the brands for $$$$. But , unlike mass media , it is not a timeslot, space dependent. You need ways to reach out to audience in a personal way , and that way celebrity tweets help !!!

  2. Karthik,
    There is a big debate on whether Advertisements in social networking sites has any value and if it adds revenue to facebook ( unlike google ad sense ) . In this whole process, all it takes for pantene is to setup a facebook profile and have something catchy for engaging the end users.

    In the west lot of celebrities are paid for the tweeting about products . And worse, there are agencies which can bring in followers for the brands for $$$$. But , unlike mass media , it is not a timeslot, space dependent. You need ways to reach out to audience in a personal way , and that way celebrity tweets help !!!

    1. Absolutely. The simple takeaway is that you cannot reuse the same TV message/campaign online – it needs to be though-through to work for a completely different, participatory medium that can convert more sales than TV, if engaged well!

  3. Absolutely. The simple takeaway is that you cannot reuse the same TV message/campaign online – it needs to be though-through to work for a completely different, participatory medium that can convert more sales than TV, if engaged well!

  4. I see your point on how 'social media' can be used better – but I take offence to your “what are the chances that at least 10% of the jobless, bored or amused crowd says yes?”. Er. I'm not jobless, bored, and did not do this for my amusement – I read about their campaign on Twitter & wanted to participate – so I went to Select City Walk specially for this. I am not a celebrity and I am not being paid by anyone to do this – and I also don't switch shampoo brands on a whim – like a lot of women, I care a LOT about my hair.

    You're right about Dove's campaign being abrasive – “for a low-involvement, low-engagement product like shampoo that people do not think twice before shifting to another brand.” if shampoo is indeed that [ I'm no market researcher so I can't speak for everyone ] then why did Dove even bother? It's like Pepsi / Coke. There will always be people who like Pepsi / Coke for their own personal reasons. I thought it was tacky – what Dove did – but maybe it works for them and maybe people sat up and took notice. Everyone's talking about both brands now – so it works for both. Win-win.

    Again, not speaking for the masses here – but I don't have a TV – so instead of thinking how Pantene's social media approach was flawed, I'm glad they at least made a start. I covered the Delhi event : http://www.studioaside.com/blog/2010/07/mystery… and I even started my own Mystery Shampoo Challenge page : http://mysteryshampoo.tumblr.com/

    Like Mumbai Ramki says, celebrity tweets help. Not only have women shown their interest in the “Mystery Shampoo” – men have too! I think that's brilliant. And there's nothing stopping anyone from using the social medium however they want it : someone on Twitter told me yesterday that their hair fell out more when they used Dove's anti-hairfall products – does that mean Dove's products are bad? I'd say maybe not – it could be that the product did not suit this one person. I don't find ads convincing in general – no matter what the brand – hence the Mystery Shampoo tagline of “You try, you decide”, albeit simple, works for me.

    I'm sure everyone will come out wiser from such campaigns. And social media has no rules – most of the people who claim to be social media gurus are just proficient with Twitter / Facebook and that's it. If Pantene thought this strategy would work, they had the balls to try it. And it has worked too πŸ™‚ I think they tied in the real-interaction – at the event with their team [ which was lovely by the way ] with online interaction – so many people signed up in the hopes of getting to use a shampoo they think is good – and they'll find out on their own – no matter what Shilpa Shetty says.

  5. I see your point on how 'social media' can be used better – but I take offence to your “what are the chances that at least 10% of the jobless, bored or amused crowd says yes?”. Er. I'm not jobless, bored, and did not do this for my amusement – I read about their campaign on Twitter & wanted to participate – so I went to Select City Walk specially for this. I am not a celebrity and I am not being paid by anyone to do this – and I also don't switch shampoo brands on a whim – like a lot of women, I care a LOT about my hair.

    You're right about Dove's campaign being abrasive – “for a low-involvement, low-engagement product like shampoo that people do not think twice before shifting to another brand.” if shampoo is indeed that [ I'm no market researcher so I can't speak for everyone ] then why did Dove even bother? It's like Pepsi / Coke. There will always be people who like Pepsi / Coke for their own personal reasons. I thought it was tacky – what Dove did – but maybe it works for them and maybe people sat up and took notice. Everyone's talking about both brands now – so it works for both. Win-win.

    Again, not speaking for the masses here – but I don't have a TV – so instead of thinking how Pantene's social media approach was flawed, I'm glad they at least made a start. I covered the Delhi event : http://www.studioaside.com/blog/2010/07/mystery… and I even started my own Mystery Shampoo Challenge page : http://mysteryshampoo.tumblr.com/

    Like Mumbai Ramki says, celebrity tweets help. Not only have women shown their interest in the “Mystery Shampoo” – men have too! I think that's brilliant. And there's nothing stopping anyone from using the social medium however they want it : someone on Twitter told me yesterday that their hair fell out more when they used Dove's anti-hairfall products – does that mean Dove's products are bad? I'd say maybe not – it could be that the product did not suit this one person. I don't find ads convincing in general – no matter what the brand – hence the Mystery Shampoo tagline of “You try, you decide”, albeit simple, works for me.

    I'm sure everyone will come out wiser from such campaigns. And social media has no rules – most of the people who claim to be social media gurus are just proficient with Twitter / Facebook and that's it. If Pantene thought this strategy would work, they had the balls to try it. And it has worked too πŸ™‚ I think they tied in the real-interaction – at the event with their team [ which was lovely by the way ] with online interaction – so many people signed up in the hopes of getting to use a shampoo they think is good – and they'll find out on their own – no matter what Shilpa Shetty says.

    1. Naina,

      I love your comment.

      Let me take the 'jobless, bored or amused crowd' part first. I apologize if you participated in the event on-ground and are not one of the 3 constituents. I completely understand that it was generalization – as much as marketers of brands like Pantene generalize their target audience when trying to buy media.

      You are absolutely right when you say Pantene had the balls to try; that there are no rules in social media – there is one simple thumb rule though, which is 'treat people with intelligence, you'll get intelligence back; treat people like idiots and you will get a similar reaction”. But let's stand on the 'there are no rules part' – while it is true, think about 2 scenarios.

      1. An on-ground event is much like a social media interaction because it is 2 way communication, unlike a television campaign or a print ad, which are broadcasting, one-way. But, in an on-ground event there is an immediacy and lack of privacy that prevents (largely) negative comments by the onlookers. It is treated as a side-show in a mall, where people come for an entirely different activity. They find stalls with assorted, interesting things and Pantene's is one among them.

      2. Online, you interact with the message (mystery shampoo; you try, you decide) in a more direct method. You perhaps reach the message after having seen it in some place offline or through a friend's recommendation and are in the site/online destination (either owned by Pantene, or it's ambassadors) for a specific purpose – to know more on how to participate, win samples/freebies or simply because you happen to be the brand's follower.

      The intent in the 2nd instance makes a lot of difference. And that's where I personally assume Pantene had the balls to assume that everyone who reaches one of its online destinations are doing it like they do it offline – as a side-show. It's a shampoo. No wonder it says, 'you try, you decide'. That works for every single shampoo in the world. Or soap. Or toothpaste. Or facewash. And that's precisely what we all do too, so we're not looking for any specific reiteration from the brand custodians.

      The point is that it is a low-involvement product category – most normal shampoos are, unless they are a special-care/salon-range shampoos which is usually 'arrived' at as a decision by its select users. Between Dove and Pantene, you may end up changing brands by various simple things – new pack, new ingredients advertised, new price offer etc. I'm a Pantene + Head & Shoulders user, while my wife uses Dove and Sunsilk, interchangeably. I don't have much hair, and that's a digressing confession.

      We don't need to be told obvious things like 'buy our product' or 'you try, you decide' for categories like shampoos – online. Brands can get far above such mundane messages for online medium if only they first agree that it is vastly different from television and print. They can talk to and with real people, instead of talking down, as they do on TV. What is the USP of this product? I couldn't see one – that it is proclaimed No. 1 is surely not a USP – it is like expecting people will see a movie because the producers say it is a superhit. It worked back in the past – not anymore, where we seek recommendations from real people who have seen the film.

      Similarly, I personally felt Pantene had nothing interesting to say and was catering to people who, in your own words, “signed up in the hopes of getting to use a shampoo they think is good”. If freebies was the criteria and they were throwing it pretty much anybody who cared to receive it, at malls…online, why aren't more people sharing neutral, negative or even more positive opinions? It all smells like advertising because everything is hunky dory and all one can see is gushing fans of the brand/shampoo. It's controlled messaging and exposure and that completely undermines the vibrant nature of social media, which is having a conversation with people who have all sorts of opinions.

      Do you mean to say that not even one person (like you mention that random tweet from someone who said something damaging about Dove), all through this campaign's online instances, who thought, 'Nah, I don't think that shampoo suited my hair'. Don't you smell a rat there? When I say rat, I simply mean the information is controlled like an advertising – Pantene 'presents' only positive things about the brand – that sure makes the entire campaign a massive brand plug. It is paid advertising – not social media engagement by any means. Engagement happens when people believe or attempt to believe in what the brand says and there are many examples of that in India, online. This is not one – Pantene merely had the money and time to spend online and did what they think is right. That's perfectly justified since they aren't doing anything wrong to anyone – just that it might be misleading to call it social media campaign. It's advertising.

      1. The last two paras hit the nail man . Since , we are getting tuned to receiving more information rather than practicing quieter modes of thought ( in www) , what Pantene has done is to Hijack an environment like facebook and twist it for selling /Ads. We don't even recognize ( unless it is pointed out by some nice chap in edelman πŸ˜‰ ) this , just process this as one more squirt of information and create a cloud of buzz in our facebook scraps.. When many such individuals do that , it passively affects our choice of shampoo ( in case of psuch products) .. ( Inky pinky ponky , facebook had a pantene , choose pantene )

  6. Naina,

    I love your comment.

    Let me take the 'jobless, bored or amused crowd' part first. I apologize if you participated in the event on-ground and are not one of the 3 constituents. I completely understand that it was generalization – as much as marketers of brands like Pantene generalize their target audience when trying to buy media.

    You are absolutely right when you say Pantene had the balls to try; that there are no rules in social media – there is one simple thumb rule though, which is 'treat people with intelligence, you'll get intelligence back; treat people like idiots and you will get a similar reaction”. But let's stand on the 'there are no rules part' – while it is true, think about 2 scenarios.

    1. An on-ground event is much like a social media interaction because it is 2 way communication, unlike a television campaign or a print ad, which are broadcasting, one-way. But, in an on-ground event there is an immediacy and lack of privacy that prevents (largely) negative comments by the onlookers. It is treated as a side-show in a mall, where people come for an entirely different activity. They find stalls with assorted, interesting things and Pantene's is one among them.

    2. Online, you interact with the message (mystery shampoo; you try, you decide) in a more direct method. You perhaps reach the message after having seen it in some place offline or through a friend's recommendation and are in the site/online destination (either owned by Pantene, or it's ambassadors) for a specific purpose – to know more on how to participate, win samples/freebies or simply because you happen to be the brand's follower.

    The intent in the 2nd instance makes a lot of difference. And that's where I personally assume Pantene had the balls to assume that everyone who reaches one of its online destinations are doing it like they do it offline – as a side-show. It's a shampoo. No wonder it says, 'you try, you decide'. That works for every single shampoo in the world. Or soap. Or toothpaste. Or facewash. And that's precisely what we all do too, so we're not looking for any specific reiteration from the brand custodians.

    The point is that it is a low-involvement product category – most normal shampoos are, unless they are a special-care/salon-range shampoos which is usually 'arrived' at as a decision by it's select users. Between Dove and Pantene, you may end up changing brands by various simple things – new pack, new ingredients advertised, new price offer etc. I'm a Pantene + Head & Shoulders user, while my wife uses Dove and Sunsilk, interchangeably. I don't have much hair, and that's a digressing confession.

    We don't need to be told obvious things like 'buy our product' or 'you try, you decide' for categories like shampoos – online. Brands can get far above such mundane messages for online medium if only they first agree that it is vastly different from television and print. They can talk to and with real people, instead of talking down, as they do on TV. What is the USP of this product? I couldn't see one – that it is proclaimed No. 1 is surely not a USP – it is like expecting people will see a movie because the producers say it is a superhit. It worked back in the past – not anymore, where we seek recommendations from real people who have seen the film.

    Similarly, I personally felt Pantene had nothing interesting to say and was catering to people who, in your own words, “signed up in the hopes of getting to use a shampoo they think is good”. If freebies was the criteria and they were throwing it pretty much anybody who cared to receive it, at malls…online, why aren't more people sharing neutral, negative or even more positive opinions? It all smells like advertising because everything is hunky dory and all one can see is gushing fans of the brand/shampoo. It's controlled messaging and exposure and that completely undermines the vibrant nature of social media, which is having a conversation with people who have all sorts of opinions.

    Do you mean to say that not even one person (like you mention that random tweet from someone who said something damaging about Dove), all through this campaign's online instances, who thought, 'Nah, I don't think that shampoo suited my hair'. Don't you smell a rat there? When I say rat, I simply mean the information is controlled like an advertising – Pantene 'presents' only positive things about the brand – that sure makes the entire campaign a massive brand plug. It is paid advertising – not social media engagement by any means. Engagement happens when people believe or attempt to believe in what the brand says and there are many examples of that in India, online. This is not one – Pantene merely had the money and time to spend online and did what they think is right. That's perfectly justified since they aren't doing anything wrong to anyone – just that it might be misleading to call it social media campaign. It's advertising.

  7. Hey Karthik,

    Read your entire post this is my take…

    Dove has put a hoarding and has spent a lot of money (with the same creative)…

    While Pantene went to the consumer and asked for their feedback..and engaged evangelists through hair tips and hair facts.

    Dove made a TVC – Spent a lot of money

    P&G for the first time used social media for an FMCG brand where both celebs and users interacted

    Ur biased in ur comments…..

    I guess you need to give Pantene credit for innovating and doing something diff rather than just using TV & Print and Out of home and claiming to be no.1 without asking the consumer what he wants or what he likes.

    Pantene on the other hand has interacted with consumers on ground and online have taken their feedback and also integrated celebrity marketing for the first time in India through Twitter.

    I believe it takes guts to do that.

    Secondly I am glad that Pantene has scaled Social Media in India to a higher level and have made the nation see that it is a serious platform from a marketing point of view as well as it is not just an option for brands anymore. Pantene has used the influencing characteristics of Social Media in an inspiring way.

    Spending a lot of money and claiming ur no 1 is easy bt actually reaching out to consumers, taking their opinion, and actually providing a product that makes a difference and what consumers likes is what I would think is an innovative strategy.

  8. Hey Karthik,

    Read your entire post this is my take…

    Dove has put a hoarding and has spent a lot of money (with the same creative)…

    While Pantene went to the consumer and asked for their feedback..and engaged evangelists through hair tips and hair facts.

    Dove made a TVC – Spent a lot of money

    P&G for the first time used social media for an FMCG brand where both celebs and users interacted

    Ur biased in ur comments…..

    I guess you need to give Pantene credit for innovating and doing something diff rather than just using TV & Print and Out of home and claiming to be no.1 without asking the consumer what he wants or what he likes.

    Pantene on the other hand has interacted with consumers on ground and online have taken their feedback and also integrated celebrity marketing for the first time in India through Twitter.

    I believe it takes guts to do that.

    Secondly I am glad that Pantene has scaled Social Media in India to a higher level and have made the nation see that it is a serious platform from a marketing point of view as well as it is not just an option for brands anymore. Pantene has used the influencing characteristics of Social Media in an inspiring way.

    Spending a lot of money and claiming ur no 1 is easy bt actually reaching out to consumers, taking their opinion, and actually providing a product that makes a difference and what consumers likes is what I would think is an innovative strategy.

    1. Since you've already said I'm biased, I'd rather choose not to explain my stand any further – let us just agree to disagree. Just for the record, this post was not a Pantene Vs Dove – the Dove part was nothing to do with social media and was merely an after-thought since they have done something interesting. Just wondering, going by these tweets of yours…

      I am glad the mystery is finally soved !!!! @mystery_shampoo is @AllNewPantene πŸ™‚ Love the new packaging

      AllNewPantene The brand that you have trusted for years has given your hair problems a solution.Mystery_Shampoo is @AllNewPantene . You Try, You Decide πŸ™‚

      I am glad that Pantene has got Social Media to the notice of thousands of ppl in India. Fianlly ppl will realise tht imp of SMM. Brilliant !

      Has Dove tried 2 sabotage Pantene campaign or is all fair when it comes 2 mrktg?Does it mean,Dove is really scared of Pantene? #advertising

      …would it be appropriate to deduce that you may…possibly be biased towards Pantene?

  9. Since you've already said I'm biased, I'd rather choose not to explain my stand any further – let us just agree to disagree. Just for the record, this post was not a Pantene Vs Dove – the Dove part was nothing to do with social media and was merely an after-thought since they have done something interesting. Just wondering, going by these tweets of yours…

    I am glad the mystery is finally soved !!!! @mystery_shampoo is @AllNewPantene πŸ™‚ Love the new packaging

    AllNewPantene The brand that you have trusted for years has given your hair problems a solution.Mystery_Shampoo is @AllNewPantene . You Try, You Decide πŸ™‚

    I am glad that Pantene has got Social Media to the notice of thousands of ppl in India. Fianlly ppl will realise tht imp of SMM. Brilliant !

    Has Dove tried 2 sabotage Pantene campaign or is all fair when it comes 2 mrktg?Does it mean,Dove is really scared of Pantene? #advertising

    …would it be appropriate to deduce that you may…possibly be biased towards Pantene?

  10. In principle, Social media is just a term. Just as we do not see web 2.0 consultants anymore, similarly, social media gurus/consultants/agencies will be replaced by some other term in times to come.

    Medium will always remain what it is, a medium. It might be Radio,Print, TV, Loudspeakers on top of a van or Internet. With time one or other medium will tend to dominate and will have its age. What is required is disclosures when you are ready to face the public. I actually appreciate Shilpa's tweet where she discloses that she has signed up to endorse the product. It helps anyone with enough intelligence to understand what is going on and sounds more genuine.

    Karthik, as per your logic, sponsored tweets are also televisionization of Social Media? And did the brand at some point say that it is a “social media campaign”? I am sorry if I missed noticing it.

    Let the fad of social media consultants/agencies burn out and when brands will start having people inside their company who evangelise the consumer and have the balls to face and answer the queries of public ( from any medium, not just web), then it will be a new era of communication. Brands will have to employ people who understand sociology, anthropology and who bring inherent goodness to communicate with the world out there and think long term. What I have seen is most of the agencies are concerned about showing the number of followers/fans as the metrics in a short period of time, which is intrinsically opposite to the whole philosophy of the two way engagement. I am pretty sure that you are aware of the modus operandi of the social media agencies. πŸ™‚

    To sum it up, I agree with Naina when she says that everyone will come up wiser with these campaigns. Just like after investing billions of dollars in Web 2.0, people realised that the only gain was that we understood how people behave and interact on web, but as a business idea, it was a flop. Let things settle down, might take 4-5 more years for that to happen.

    Cheers,
    Rohit

  11. In principle, Social media is just a term. Just as we do not see web 2.0 consultants anymore, similarly, social media gurus/consultants/agencies will be replaced by some other term in times to come.

    Medium will always remain what it is, a medium. It might be Radio,Print, TV, Loudspeakers on top of a van or Internet. With time one or other medium will tend to dominate and will have its age. What is required is disclosures when you are ready to face the public. I actually appreciate Shilpa's tweet where she discloses that she has signed up to endorse the product. It helps anyone with enough intelligence to understand what is going on and sounds more genuine.

    Karthik, as per your logic, sponsored tweets are also televisionization of Social Media? And did the brand at some point say that it is a “social media campaign”? I am sorry if I missed noticing it.

    Let the fad of social media consultants/agencies burn out and when brands will start having people inside their company who evangelise the consumer and have the balls to face and answer the queries of public ( from any medium, not just web), then it will be a new era of communication. Brands will have to employ people who understand sociology, anthropology and who bring inherent goodness to communicate with the world out there and think long term. What I have seen is most of the agencies are concerned about showing the number of followers/fans as the metrics in a short period of time, which is intrinsically opposite to the whole philosophy of the two way engagement. I am pretty sure that you are aware of the modus operandi of the social media agencies. πŸ™‚

    To sum it up, I agree with Naina when she says that everyone will come up wiser with these campaigns. Just like after investing billions of dollars in Web 2.0, people realised that the only gain was that we understood how people behave and interact on web, but as a business idea, it was a flop. Let things settle down, might take 4-5 more years for that to happen.

    Cheers,
    Rohit

    1. Fair points – I'm aware of how social media agencies build numbers…yes. That could help marketing teams in the client side 'showcase' RoI, but may not help the brand in reality since the people who join the communities may be joining for the wrong reasons – freebies is one of the big reasons.

      Pantene did not say it is a social media campaign, but it's followers – paid or unpaid – are saying it. Times of India's city supplement, which gives you editorial coverage for money with no 'advertorial' tag, says that leading actresses are gushing about the results in social networking sites – that is a plug for us to assume that they've used social media for this campaign. Plus take a look at the other comments – they are saying it's effective use of social media. I'm simply trying to contest it in a civil way.

  12. Fair points – I'm aware of how social media agencies build numbers…yes. That could help marketing teams in the client side 'showcase' RoI, but may not help the brand in reality since the people who join the communities may be joining for the wrong reasons – freebies is one of the big reasons.

    Pantene did not say it is a social media campaign, but it's followers – paid or unpaid – are saying it. Times of India's city supplement, which gives you editorial coverage for money with no 'advertorial' tag, says that leading actresses are gushing about the results in social networking sites – that is a plug for us to assume that they've used social media for this campaign. Plus take a look at the other comments – they are saying it's effective use of social media. I'm simply trying to contest it in a civil way.

  13. Hi Karthik,
    Good coverage of an Indian case study, once again, by you!

    What I can see is that P&G did not really focus on Social Media at all (although there was huge opportunity with this one) and like most Indian FMCG brands, they focus on mainstream media, and Social Media is almost like a small tag-along! They still do not trust it enough to make it very integral into the larger marketing plans.

    Whatever little traction happened on Social Media was trivial and accidental.

    Having said that, I will watch P&G to come up with something very interesting on Social Media, even in India. If their track record globally is anything to go by. From Being Girl, to Old Spice, to Happy It's Here, all have been amazing social media activations. Unlike an HUL which does not experiment so much and prefers to go with their tried and tested television, at least P&G is bold to try Social Media! And it is only a matter of time before we see one very successful activation by them, in India too.

  14. The last two paras hit the nail man . Since , we are getting tuned to receiving more information rather than practicing quieter modes of thought ( in www) , what Pantene has done is to Hijack an environment like facebook and twist it for selling /Ads. We don't even recognize ( unless it is pointed out by some nice chap in edelman πŸ˜‰ ) this , just process this as one more squirt of information and create a cloud of buzz in our facebook scraps.. When many such individuals do that , it passively affects our choice of shampoo ( in case of psuch products) .. ( Inky pinky ponky , facebook had a pantene , choose pantene )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *