Download Progressive Follows The King
Progressive Insurance is aggressively promoting the idea that people should dress up as their irritating spokescashier 'Flo" for Halloween. They've created a web page detailing the components of the costume (identified wherever possible as tie-ins with participating brands, of course), as well as promoting the official costume on Amazon and Tweeting the hell out of it. The reaction from those who comment on marketing has been generally supportive, as it’s a brilliant hijacking of Halloween for the brand.No, it's not. It’s stupid.
Though first, let me see if I can make the case for why it isn’t dumb. I can think of three arguments:
- Theres no such thing as bad publicity -- This old adage is true, to a point, as it’s better to be talked about than not.
- Content doesn't really matter -- The what people talk about isn’t as important as the fact that they’re talking (see point above)
- Conversation equals relevance -- The acts of viewing and sharing are proof of relevance, so anything that prompts these behaviors is good branding
I didn't really have to invent this case for a campaign like Flo's Halloween dress-up, since I think it was the logic behind the madness that Burger King unleashed on the consuming public over the past few years: Inane YouTube videos, a faux broiler-scented cologne, and more than anything that omnipresent Burger King mascot, who we endured in commercials, video games and, yes, as a Halloween mask.
The marketing world's reaction to it was similarly positive and full of praise for such creative delivery of the Burger King brand. The only problem is that it not only did nothing for sales (the company’s foot traffic and profits consistently trailed its major, albeit less experimental competitors, too), but it blew up the Burger King brand. Once known for broiled burgers, it became known for...well...nothing, really, except for a creepy mascot. Oh, and the ad agency behind it won awards, and probably got lots of new business for creating the garbage.
It wasn't branding, it was a drive-by accident on the side of the road. Only now is Burger King getting back to working on its value proposition and finding ways to communicate it to consumers.
So the argument for what Progressive is doing is similarly vacuous.
It's also about 50 years old. All three points I mentioned earlier were true in the 1960s or so, when there was no Internet to hold marketers accountable for their promises (or for the functional performance of their wares). The idea of breaking through the clutter made sense then, as it does now to a degree, but truly new thinking requires far more conscious and conscientious attention to what’s changed:
- There is such a thing as bad publicity -- This little thing called Internet search means that the worst or simply most innocently inane exposure never goes away.
- Substance matters -- Dressing up like Flo (or a caveman, or whatever) has no connection to Progressive’s business, other than via the imagination of its agency.
- Conversation is a means, not an end -- Talking about irrelevant things is still irrelevant, and people remember that about your brand (if they remember anything at all).
It's not like Progressive is committing some cardinal sin with this silly campaign, but when considered in context of the other ways it has sabotaged its brand in the name of promoting silly, old-fashioned marketing (its near-total abuse of its camera/discount offering is a prime example), it suggests a pattern of misunderstanding by their marketing braintrust.
But wait! I bet we’ll see rankings of favorite Halloween branded masks this year, much like we rate Super Bowl commercials. Maybe Progressive will come out on top.
Only it's certainly not branding, nor is it terribly effective marketing. Progressive should hope that it is totally forgettable.
(Image credit: Get in on the fun!)
