The rise in Guerrilla ad tactics

whiskeyman

Sony are coming under fire for their latest guerrilla advertiisng tactic in the US.
PSP graffiti in Philadelphia



See the backlash here

A few years back, Microsoft did a similar tactic to promote their MSN service.
New York City fines Microsoft for sidewalk ads.



I remember Guinness running a similar style campaign for the launch of the first Witnness festival, with an old door on Camden street graffiti-ed with "Are you a Witnness?" or something similar.

With an overload in ad-space, how far can guerrilla tactics go?
Should we expect big business to be more responsible?
Have the creatives lost all creativity if they have to resort to vandalism to get noticed?

Post comments and examples here... especially of the Irish market if you see any.

madramor

years ago fineos used to have fineos.com in chalk all over the street outside their building on Pembroke Street.

It was a stencil and not a hand drawn scribble.

I walked past the building every day for months and never knew it was fineos's head quarters until I saw the mark on the ground.

At the time I worked in a company that would have considered fineos a competitor so I was very aware of the company.

d-arke

have to say, it doesnt surprise me what companies are doing these days. personally, i think the idea of guerrilla ads, well the ones you mentioned above, are a good idea if done in moderation. can you image walking down a multicoloured footpath of ads.

as for the first picture, graffiti-ed walls if a bit much. maybe if it was restricted to placing graffiti style advertisements on the security shutters of shop doors/windows etc on mainstreets???

regarding the OP questions.
1. Guerrilla tactics will go as far as they can to achieve whatever they intend just like any other guerrilla actions

2. Should we expect big business to be more responsible?? Of course we do, but we know that they dont and that they are only out to get our money and will do so regardless of ethics and morality (apart from a few). if they can get away with it they will exploit until they are told otherwise.

3. "Have the creatives lost all creativity if they have to resort to vandalism to get noticed?" Personally, i think that they have maintained their creativity and exploited an untapped resource for advertising, what do you think graffiti is after all. i know its unsightly etc, but the people who put up the graffiti on walls etc are doing it for a reason, to get attention (for the most part), gang tags, aspiring artists (there are a few who do it, i think there was a forum on this ages ago with someone posting up pics from around dublin), and others etc. So if a company wants to come along and pay whomever it may be who owns that property/land so be it. especially if its government/council property like footpaths etc, the revenue gained from such ads may be the equivalent if not more of what was use to clean up graffiti originally. healthier pockets all round.

dont get me wrong i dont see your point. how far can they go? is it right or wrong? but for now, while they can get away with
it.............


just wanted to add, these tactic also save the company money. less use of billboards and the need to have large posters printed up. companies are trying to become the ryanair in advertising if you understand what im saying.

just another note. isn't it BMI or Virgin that paint their planes in the colours of various companies. isn't that just the same as above....just a thought, dont shoot

whiskeyman

d-arke wrote:

So if a company wants to come along and pay whomever it may be who owns that property/land so be it. especially if its government/council property like footpaths etc, the revenue gained from such ads may be the equivalent if not more of what was use to clean up graffiti originally. healthier pockets all round.

Just to clarify, in all my examples, the companies in question have not paid the relevant parties and have actually been hauled in to face questioning / fines over their illegal actions.

d-arke wrote:

just wanted to add, these tactic also save the company money. less use of billboards and the need to have large posters printed up. companies are trying to become the ryanair in advertising if you understand what im saying.

just another note. isn't it BMI or Virgin that paint their planes in the colours of various companies. isn't that just the same as above....just a thought, dont shoot

I think you're getting mixed up with ambient / new media advertising and the form of guerilla marketing I'm mentioning.
In the Ryanair case, they have sold their planes as adspace. I think they're earning around 400k pa from each client. This isn't guerilla tactics, but a commercially acceptable paid form of adspace.

Guerrilla tactics may save money, as they don't purchase traditional adspace, but they shift the spend on "methods of attack", whether it be graffiti artists or the infamous FHM stunt when her naked image was projected on the Houses of Parliment as part of the "Top 100 women" campaign.

There almost has to be a level of illegality about all the forms of guerilla tactics, whether it be intrustion, planning permission (lack of) or vandalism.
In all cases, the planners weigh up the cost of the campaign against possible fines / backlash.
Without this, it just becomes another accepted paid form of ad space.

Another low level example could be the incident when two Cork hurlers had a "Corona Beer" logo on their boots last year. Although the players were paid (€500 each), this was not an accepted form of advertising and created quite a stir in the GAA and media circles. (here, the backlash fell on the players as this purportedly broke GAA advertising rules).

With clutter being the problem, such tactics are becoming more and more popular.
Keep any examples here if you find any

d-arke

Sorry, prob should have checked the links you provided, but I did assume they never paid for it. If they did I would have no problem with it thats why I was kinda comparing it to the planes with advertisements, in that I don't believe the creatives have lost their sense of creativity. Of course the likes of Ryanair/BMI sell advertising space on their planes, companies would have a tricky job getting the advertising on otherwise

What I meant by companies saving money was not that they can just go out and vandalise public property but that they would instead pay for that advertising space which would probably be cheaper that the standard billboard advertising. It could be considered a new media in advertising if it was approached from a conventional angle and not in the sense of guerrilla tactics. The Sony one was a bit underhand by the looks of it, in that they didnt directly mention Sony in the graffiti, but the MSN one was obvious and they subsequently apologised. Though the damage had already been done.

I remember that FHM one, that was good albeit a bit cheeky (pun intended ), though that one would definitely be counted as Guerrilla advertising. Don't think that one would have went down too well.

What your saying about the guerilla tactics having some level of illegality is all relevant. Name any legal guerrilla tactics. Thats why I was saying maybe if companies wanted to go down the road of advertising on public properties they could possible use shop door/window shutters, and pay the relevant parties etc. Just a thought.

Regarding the two Cork hurlers, did Corona do anything wrong? They've just been following the norm of others by finding new ways to advertise their products, they paid the relevant parties to advertise, so technically they never did anything wrong. Okay they may, or may not, have known about the GAA's strict rules against players advertising, which may or may not been classed as a Guerrilla tactics if they did as they knew what sort of reaction it would get. And of course, it did work, I remember reading about that even though I don't like anything to do with GAA. This is form of advertising is no different to advertising on any other piece of clothing. The GAA have a no advertising policy or something and it was the players who broke this policy. Not Corona. I can see your point but I believe that the responsibility of this came down to the players.

Wish I could think of some examples at the mo......

PS. I have an interview in London tomorrow regarding a media planning position which I think is about how best to promote a brand in digital markets (sms, internet etc) and to track the success of these promotions, so would get good to hear of some examples if you know any

d-arke

Ah my memory has come back to me, only took a couple of mins. Anyways, there was a tv programme made called "The Pepsi Wars" I think. Basically it was about Pepsi V Coke in the states and how they were paying off, building new wings, gymnasiums etc in secondary schools for the rights to place vending machines in that school. I'm not too sure but I think there was a big fiasco over some young basketballer called LeBruan James (something like that, apparently the next Jordan), think he's in the Sprite ads. I'll have a look, and see what i can dig up

d-arke

my interview tomorrow is regarding online advertising. any tips?

role of the job:
"capable of planning brand campaigns, response campaigns or campaigns that fall somewhere in between."

where would guerrilla tactics fall within online advertising, spam?? How do companies genuinly promote themselves online outside of forming partnerships with say yahoo etc or having key words embedded in their websites for better results within search engines like google and yahoo. google have some adwords thing that helps with that. interview is not with google

whiskeyman

d-arke wrote:

Ah my memory has come back to me, only took a couple of mins. Anyways, there was a tv programme made called "The Pepsi Wars" I think. Basically it was about Pepsi V Coke in the states and how they were paying off, building new wings, gymnasiums etc in secondary schools for the rights to place vending machines in that school. I'm not too sure but I think there was a big fiasco over some young basketballer called LeBruan James (something like that, apparently the next Jordan), think he's in the Sprite ads. I'll have a look, and see what i can dig up

Great programme that (wasnt it "The Cola War"... as in "Cold War..) , and the whole Coke Vs Pepsi battle is fascinating.
All sorts of marketing tactics used, but the biggest guerilla one I can remember didn't even involve the big creatives, but just a free thinking student!

3.30.98

EVANS, Ga. (AP) -- School officials have expunged suspensions of two students who were punished for wearing Pepsi shirts to school on a day when Coca-Cola executives were visiting.

"The penalty didn't fit the crime," Columbia County Superintendent Tom Dohrmann said Friday.

"We still think the behavior was inappropriate and disruptive, however, we have decided that another method of discipline may have been more appropriate and we have decided to remove the suspensions from their records."

Dohrmann said a principal-student conference on appropriate behavior would have been a better way to handle the situation involving seniors Mike Cameron, 19, and Dan Moxley, 17.

Coca-Cola officials came to the school last week as part of Greenbrier's effort to win a $500 contest run by the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Augusta and a larger national contest with a $10,000 prize. There was even a school picture in which Greenbrier students spelled out "Coke."

So Cameron waited until just before the picture was taken to remove his outer shirt and reveal a blue-and-white-striped shirt with a Pepsi logo underneath. And Moxley turned his back during the picture so the red-white-and-blue logo on his Pepsi shirt would show up.

The two students received a one-day, in-house suspension for their prank, which school officials, including Principal Gloria Hamilton, called disruptive and rude.

Cameron served his suspension at home on Wednesday; Moxley was to serve his punishment in school in April.

The prank and punishment made national headlines. Dohrmann said the incident has been blown out of proportion.

"We support the students' First Amendment right to wear the shirts, as long as it's not disruptive. They've admitted that they did it as a prank," Dohrmann said.

Cameron said Hamilton told him of the decision Friday afternoon.

"I was a little bit surprised. I didn't think she'd give in," he said. "I said, 'Thanks, I hold you in high respect. You were just doing your job.'"

He said he had been invited to appear on NBC's Today show and on CBS' Late Show with David Letterman this Friday. He leaves for New York on Thursday.

Meanwhile, the cola wars continued.

Not to be outdone, Pepsi said it would donate $500 to Greenbrier, which opened less than two years ago 10 miles northwest of Augusta.

Sleepy

My favourite means I've seen of this Guerilla advertising would be hard to declare illegal. It's a very simple use of stencils, combined with a high pressure power hose to "clean" a logo or ad into the pavement (though I'm sure it could be done to a wall either).

As you're not actually "defacing" something and the means of placing the ad there is 100% environmentally friendly, it'd be interesting to see how the courts would react. It'd definitely attract media attention should a large-scale campaign of it be carried out and your company slapped on the wrist for it. The "we were just trying to make the place cleaner" comments would probably play well in the press. I could see the likes of Ryanair or other companies with a bit of a maverick reputation using it to enormous effect.

whiskeyman

Sleepy wrote:

My favourite means I've seen of this Guerilla advertising would be hard to declare illegal. It's a very simple use of stencils, combined with a high pressure power hose to "clean" a logo or ad into the pavement (though I'm sure it could be done to a wall either).

As you're not actually "defacing" something and the means of placing the ad there is 100% environmentally friendly, it'd be interesting to see how the courts would react. It'd definitely attract media attention should a large-scale campaign of it be carried out and your company slapped on the wrist for it. The "we were just trying to make the place cleaner" comments would probably play well in the press. I could see the likes of Ryanair or other companies with a bit of a maverick reputation using it to enormous effect.

Somebody watched Dragons Den

Sleepy

Yep, still, you can't patent an artform and a good idea is a good idea.

lostexpectation

Sleepy wrote:

My favourite means I've seen of this Guerilla advertising would be hard to declare illegal. It's a very simple use of stencils, combined with a high pressure power hose to "clean" a logo or ad into the pavement (though I'm sure it could be done to a wall either).

As you're not actually "defacing" something and the means of placing the ad there is 100% environmentally friendly, it'd be interesting to see how the courts would react. It'd definitely attract media attention should a large-scale campaign of it be carried out and your company slapped on the wrist for it. The "we were just trying to make the place cleaner" comments would probably play well in the press. I could see the likes of Ryanair or other companies with a bit of a maverick reputation using it to enormous effect.

that was an amazing idea? I must try it. I once thought of putting down clear weather sealing stuff to see it was discernable in changing wet conditions... intangible advertising rather then ambient or guerilla. Ya wouldn't invest in that guy though.

shepthedog

Very interesting idea about the "cleaning advertising" can see it being enough to build a business one but the thinking is along the right lines..

Dragons Den, great show..

mneylon

whiskeyman - I'd see them as being innovative, creative and original. They might be a bit extreme and push the boundaries in some cases, but guerilla marketing is all about "thinking outside the box".

growler

It works well if done well and doesn't damage the brand. It's ok for Sony to use a graffitti tactic to promote their brand, they are aimed at a youth audience, graffiti obviously wouldn't work so well for Garda Recruitment for example.

Having had the dubious pleasure of knowing a few graffiti "artists" over the years, they do think of what they do as an art, and some of it ...like the banksy stuff is incredibly clever. But the same artists would never sell their souls to corporate advertising (if they remain true to their anti-establishment roots).

I suspect that the youth audiences that these, particularly graffiti, tactics are aimed at will, surprise surprise, quickly become cynical about it.

The FHM projection was genius.

The other thing is that it only work in conjunction with a pre planned PR campaign, there is no point doing it if someone in the media doesn't kick up a fuss about it. The FHM projection was probabaly seen by thousands, the subsequent media coverage by millions.

there are probably hundreds of badly planned and executed guerilla marketing campigns every month that fail because they are not "controversial" enough. Then there is always the risk of a campaign backfiring and damaging a brand, though I can't think of one right now !