That is the question that popped into my head last weekend triggered by my kids. Or to be more precise, it was triggered by the Madagascar film-based toys they were clutching excitedly in their hands after a rare trip to McDonalds.
By borrowed interest I mean the marketing tactic of ‘borrowing’ properties external to the brand in question to capture consumer interest, such as McDonald’s tie-in with DreamWorks.
Borrowed interest is often the main component of sales promotion activity where there is a tangible merchandise tie-in. As in the case of McDonalds this can work handsomely (well based on the straw-poll reaction of my kids…!).
There are also cases when borrowed interest is a necessity to attracting consumer attention such as in commoditised and/or low interest categories. Just think of the insurance market which employs a variety of mnemonic devices from dogs, phones and geckos to name but a few to help build a stronger narrative.
But outside of the above scenarios does borrowed interest have a legitimate role?
Not so, according to a very senior Creative I recall from the dim and distant past. According to him borrowed interest was an absolute ‘no-no’ when it came to developing marketing strategies.
His argument went along the lines of…
1. Borrowed interest falsely lays claim to consumer attention. It acts as a supportive crutch, when surely the focus must be to find something directly interesting to say about the brand in question that would help grab relevant consumer attention
2. Borrowed interest relies upon people making a contextual connection, without which the message isn’t taken on board.
I can agree with his thinking to a certain extent but not in his black and white assertion that all borrowed interest is bad. Agreed, borrowed interest done badly is more likely to lead to poor results. For example gratuitous references that don’t help reinforce the brand narrative in some way, will ultimately make any initial attention garnered somewhat hollow.
Also, while Wonderbra’s ‘two cups of joy’ viral homage to Cadbury’s Gorilla campaign paid off, a campaign risks failure if people don’t make the connection to such popular cultural references, especially when being used as a route into comprehending the overarching message. Of course the other risk is that even if people do ‘get it’ a brand won’t get the differentiation and attention it desires if it has lamely jumped on the ‘me-too’ brand band-wagon of following the latest fads (think of the initial splurge around Google map mash-ups).
However, it is my belief that borrowed interest as a strategy can attract attention and strengthen a brand’s appeal if done well.
Two very different examples help prove this.
First off, is the Diesel sex cartoon viral (SFW XXX Dirty 30). This video helps celebrate its 30th anniversary, using actual porn footage with the rude parts censored out by cartoon overlays. The WOM this created without a doubt helped amplify and reinforce its risqué and rebellious credentials
The second case is from Intel. Talking about microchips powering computers isn’t a terribly appealing way to reinforce the ‘Intel inside’ brand positioning to a youthful demographic. However harnessing the ‘Powered by Intel’ thought to their shared passion for music is. This led to Intel developing the 'Intel powers music' campaign to encourage MySpace users to install a branded widget, which let them increase the amount of music storage space within their profile page.
What’s lovely about this approach is that is takes a passion and turns it into a social object that provides real utility in a way that credibly underlines the brand credentials while building its reputation in music. And it does so in a way that gives a permanent presence that helps shake off Intel’s stuffy image. Genius!
We’ll save further discussion on social objects for another time.
In the meantime - borrowed or not - a penny for your thoughts?
