| This is a good writeup about an extremely interesting subject, and the beginning of what is sure to be a major trend. But the author kind of lost me here: "Chipotle Scarecrow will, without a doubt, go down as one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history." Really? On what metrics? It seems extremely successful as far as reach is concerned, sure. It probably drove a good deal of positive brand sentiment, which is great. But how did this campaign drive sales of burritos? How did it drive gains in share against competitors? What was the actual ROI? It always bugs me when people talk about "marketing" as though it's purely about reaching eyeballs. That's a big part of advertising, which is a subset of marketing. But it's not how a successful marketing campaign is solely measured. Especially when we're talking about marketing for a restaurant chain. Distributing a very engaging mobile game is a wonderful and rare accomplishment, but Chipotle is in the food business. It needs to demonstrate that Mobile Success A led to Business Success B. This campaign was extremely clever, creative and innovative. It was a huge hit on mobile devices, and it garnered a great deal of attention. All of those things are to be commended. But unless the ROI was positive, unless this campaign really moved the needle in a major way on sales, we can't speak about how "successful" it actually was -- let alone speak in hyperbolic terms about how it was one of "the most successful marketing campaigns in history." In time it may well prove to be a huge success. Perhaps even an enormous success. But the jury is still out. |
I agree that from a lot of perspectives the way people talk about branding campaigns looks real.... iffy, for lack of a better term. Everyone knows that it somehow works, but nobody's exactly sure how yet. Nobody can really measure the impact yet even.