Lonelygirl15: The Authentic Fake
Posted by anastasia on 09-15-2006Yesterday a trade journalist asked me what I thought the implications of Lonelygirl15 would be for marketers, brands, etc. who are eager to jump into the social media space to reach young people. I thought I would share my response and see if you all agree or disagree.
In many ways Lonelygirl15 is no different from any sort of breakout video on the web that goes viral or gets hugely popular (think SNL's Lazy Sunday or Numa Numa). It's part luck and part just being compelling in some way to an Internet audience. I say this because I don't think brands can just recreate this phenomenon. WIth Lonelygirl15, it was a mixture of having an attractive yet believable teen girl that people were relating to, an interesting and mysterious storyline (religious parents, homeschooling, satanism?) and then the intrigue over whether it was real or not. But for all of that to even catch the media's attention it had to blow up on YouTube first. This is something you can't just orchestrate.
I also think a lot of people were upset she was a fake — call them YouTube haters (i.e. the anonymous commenters on YouTube who unleashed their vitrol). People don't like being tricked. Some of her fans were ok with it, but it's always risky to present something as real when it's not. I think if there was a big brand behind her like Coke or P&G, people would have been way more upset. The fact that it was "indie filmmakers on a very small budget" vs. "the Hollywood marketing machine" made a difference in terms of how big the backlash was.
So I don't think that brands can manufacture this phenomenon without looking like copycats or like they are just trying too hard. Secret got some blowback on blogs when they appropriated Post Secret's concept (a blog where people send in their secrets on post cards) as an ad campaign. Now — that was blowback from a tiny but influential technorati type crowd that knows what Post Secret is. The campaign may be doing fine on TV and even on teen websites — I don't know. I do think if brands find an organic UGC (user generated content) star, they can and should offer to sponsor their page or vlog and pay them for it :). Look at Emo Girl, who is sponsored by Nature's Cure and Go Daddy.
Technorati Tag: Lonelygirl15
September 15th, 2006 at 8:31 am
I'm not sure how indie the filmmakers truly are, when they have a relationship with Creative Artists Agency, a top Hollywood talent agency.
But I don't mind. I'm still watching the series.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Hi Eric. According to the L.A. Times article, the filmmakers said:
"We did this with zero resources. Anybody could do what we did," Flinders said Tuesday. The sum total of the equipment they used to create a sensation on the Internet, as well as perhaps the web's biggest homegrown mystery: "Two desk lamps (one broken), an open window and a $130 camera."
Goodfried said Creative Artists Agency in Beverly Hills got involved about a month ago — well into the lonelygirl15 story — through a friend who works at the agency. "We went in there one afternoon. I walked around the place, and met some cool young guys that got the idea and said they would help us," he said.
So CAA only got involved when it began to get big.
September 16th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
And, they may be mad, but she's got 10K more subscribers this week than she had last week.
I checked Monday, when the murmurings were reaching fever-pitch, but before the actual confession and she had 25K subscribers. There are over 35K right now.
People say it doesn't work, but it does get attention. The question is, is the attention good for your brand or is it harmful. Does it create trust? Does it increase sales?
A car wreck garners attention, but if your company's truck is involved are you excited about all the great advertising? I hate purposeful viral advertising…
September 17th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Starbucks went through a phase of putting poetry on the inside of its cups; its interior decoration is calculated from the chair upholstery down to the bulletin board with the postings about fair trade coffee. But consumers still buy (literally and figuratively) the ambiance, the alleged intimacy, and the (corporate) artistic flair. Drinking Starbucks will not making you unique, but research shows Starbucks' advertising dollars have convinced consumers of exactly that.
My point is that I do not believe the power of advertisers should be underestimated. I believe this article is correct in its assertion that people can discern when they are being sold something, but I also believe people can appreciate a good story or catchy message even though (and sometimes because)it comes with a product push. Had there been a Nike Swoop poster in the background of Bree's room, I probably still would have watched.