T-MOBILE: THE FATAL FLAW

I found myself watching the T Mobile spots again.

And I thought to myself "there's something wrong with this. It doesn't fit quite as it should."

And do you know what? It doesn't.

The spots are supposed to be all about community, about sharing, about people - anyone, anywhere - getting together to do great stuff together. And they seem to extole a mantra of "get together, do amazing things".

BUT ... actually what the second spot in the campaign shows is that, when a bunch of amateurs - REAL people - get together, the result is shite: loads of people singing piss-poor karaoke in a way that makes me want to wretch.

WHEREAS ... when a bunch of professionals - dancers in the case of the flashmob - gets together, the result is utterly watchable: loads of people dancing really smoothly to a cracking mash that makes me smile. A lot.

Now, maybe I am taking the whole thing too literally and am comparing two very different pieces of work (the whole experience and media coverage of the second piece was great and did add hugely to its impact).

But it also says that, when it comes down to it, interesting and creative things CAN come from anywhere. But that they are FAR more likely to come from people who are good at what they do are well curated, than it is to come from a group of rank amateurs pissing about with microphones in a town square.

So where does that leave crowdsourcing, social engagement, the whole "help create a flickr pool", contribute to our Facebook Group movement?

Says to me that this sort of thing needs tight curation and people with real talent.

Otherwise, we will end up with a bunch of campaigns that are interesting and engaging only to the people who take part in them and of sod all interest to anyone else because the content will be crap.

By way of reminder, here's the Trafalgar Square thing (410,000 views) ...

And here's the Liverpool Street bash (11.7 million views) ...

Comments

[Drew B]

Most people I've spoken to this just don't find the current spot entertaining one bit. It's just an organised crowd of people singing. What's good about that?

My view? I didn't even find the first one interesting to be honest. It was rammed in front of me on tube ads, and I just thought it was a bit naff.

The one thing that I think has made people like it, those that do, is that flashmobs are surprising and entertaining. What little of that there was with the first spot they lost in doing it twice. As you say James, interesting probably only to those that made it.

[James Gordon-MacIntosh]

Thanks for that Drew.

Interesting take on it ... The flashmob did lose its sense of spontaneity and fun by dint of being used across an ATL campaign. But then those are the requirements of advertising and the results so far are (apparently) pretty good).

The "second album is often the hardest syndrome" seems to be a fair enough assesment ... but they gave themselves a virtually impossible first piece to follow in that case.

BTW, Richard Huntington at Saatchi worked on the campaign and has some interesting POVs on his blog ... http://tr.im/lvux

[Will]

I would suggest it's far more random than just the amateur vs professional debate; I don't think professionalism and quality of editing has as much to do with how much people want to engage with it. And sometimes, ensuring that it's absolutely going to 'work' is damned near impossible.

I'm reminded of the Gossage quote - "The real fact of the matter is that nobody reads ads. People read what interest them, and sometimes it's an ad."

I think the same applies here.

One of the worst things to be asked to do in our business is to be be requested to 'make a viral'; it's simply because nobody knows just what will 'go viral'. Will it get trumped by a 17 year old's well edited short film?

Like you say, I imagine most people hadn't seen a Flashmob of such high quality filmed before (it's a mistake to assume they were popular in the mind of the average person beforehand), though with something like Karaoke - well, i'm sure they've seen the odd singalong.

So that may explain the hits. Or it may not; it could be that the seeding for the first was better thought out. I don't know about that, but looking at the overall campaign objective - to express the strategy of 'Life's for sharing' vs the brand name, I would say both have met it.

Drew, I really can't agree with the 'interesting only to those who made it' point. People engaged, did they not, with the event? If it was truly only interesting to those who made it, then where did those thousands of people on the day come from? How has it managed that?

People have engaged with the brand in a more compelling way than just reading a static tagline; they've made it mean something - like o2's ownership of the dome, they've put a strategic thought into practice, and I applaud them for it.

[Robin Grant, We Are Social]

I was in 100% agreement with Amelia:
http://ameliatorode.typepad.com/life_moves_pretty_fast/2009/05/new-tmobile-flash-mob-ad-in-trafalgar-sqaure.html

i.e. I hated the first ad as it was fake, but liked the idea of the second as it was real.

I'd like to think that that should have a been a crucial difference. Apparently not...

[James Gordon-MacIntosh]

Will ...

I think that Drew was suggesting that the people who "made it" were the group who went down and sang along - rather than just the advertising agency team.

And yes, I agree, a bunch of people engaged.

But a bunch of other people are watching the resulting ad thinking "they murdered that song". And aren't thinking "what an interesting, engaging brand".

Besides which, the thing that I would really like to know (I've been trying to find out) is what T-Mobile does (over any other mobile operator) to make life more "sharing" ... At what point do the claims made become more than ad gloss and start becoming service reality?

[James Gordon-MacIntosh]

Robin ...

From Amelia's post: "It seems that this was a case of an ad that real people genuinely enjoyed, whereas the advertising media village didn't [because it felt fake]."

Whether it's right or not, people love great creative work and the ideas it can convey.

The flashmob ad conveys the IDEA of sharing and togetherness, the moment (and let's not forget that the reactions of the crowd and their being roped in ARE real) much better than the karaoke, if you ask me.

And that was the point that I was trying to make ... interesting stuff with "real people" that looks shit is of interest only to those who take part and those in the media village who read about it.

Good work CAN come from anywhere, but it's MORE LIKELY to come from professional people, well curated.

Funnily, I thought that your guest editorships of the NOW blog for Fiesta rather proved the point - you picked interesting people, not just anybody. That created more interesting content. Good work that, BTW.

[Will]

James,

Regardless of whether 'made it' was the agency team or those who showed up (which would have included a fair number of randoms), I'd still contest the appeal's wider than just those who were there. Same with the first ad.

What I do think - you can't create an audience from scratch. You have to appeal to intrinsic attitudes. The ad spoke to those whose attitude of spontaneous enjoyment was met by the ad.

Yes, a bunch of people are thinking 'they murdered the song'. But wasn't it ever thus with karaoke?

At least the brand has taken up a point of view, one which, you'd hope, their service. You're right, you can't use ad gloss to overshadow shit, REAL brand use. But would more people be interested in using the brand as a result of the ad? Probably. Do they have to build on it? Most definitely.