Going snarky: When good causes have bad campaigns

Maybe I’m missing something, but I really dislike this campaign, called Tappening (sounds like a straight-to-video horror movie).  More like a nonprofit marketing horror.  Even though I’m a fan of the creative people behind it, I’m giving it two thumbs down.

Here’s the idea:  Spread lies about where bottled water comes from to show that bottled water marketing is a lie.

Huh?

You can even go to this website to make up your own lies to spread.  So far there are precious few submissions and most are incomprehensible.  Nuff said.

The main website isn’t bad, but here are the problems with the overall campaign:

1. It takes far too much thought to figure out.  99% of people won’t do it.  The 1% who will are the choir.  Already converted.

2. It’s a bad idea to spread falsehoods as a way to counter them, even if you’re trying to debunk them.  There is psychological research showing people only recall the myth, not the debunking part. 

3. It’s not a good idea to position yourself as a liar.  Even ironically.  Joe Isuzu was sort of funny but did he sell cars? (Not really - he only added 1% to sales and the brand is dead now.)

4. There’s not a clear call to action.  Lie?  That’s the call to action?  That’s not going to change the world for the better.

I always say ad campaigns fail because they lack a clear call to action or a clear line to the consumer’s heart and mind.  I think this misses the mark on both points - and builds general cynicism.  None of that helps the environmental cause much.

I’d love to be proved wrong, but I’m afraid I’m right.

 

 

 

Page 1 of 1 pages