Goes, without question, to the Gymkhana series by Ken Block for DC Shoes.
Gymkhana Two has clocked up a grand total of 17.6 million YouTube views to date - since it was uploaded on 1 June.
Gymkhana Three, meantime, has clocked up 8 million views since it went up on 14 September.
Quite a remarkable show for any viral film.
Any lessons? Course, the old one: content is everything.
Any questions? Yes, one: what the FUCK does this actually say about DC Shoes?
I grant you, it's doing an awful lot for Ken Block. It's arguably doing a fair amount for Monster Energy drinks. And I am quite sure that there will be a marked increase in traffic to the DC Shoes website.
But long-term, does anyone at all take anything at all away from these films about the brand that in theory they are sposed to be promoting?
Call me old fashioned, but I always thought that campaigns that have had the sums of money lavished upon them that this has had were designed to leave behind a lasting brand impression - who knows, maybe even some knowledge of the product?
This, let's be honest, does neither.
Still, enjoy the watching of them in the meantime ... and while you do, contemplate how little you ever learn about DCs ...
As a endorser of the brand this succeeds in making DC look pretty damn good. Do i learn much about DC shoes, no. But do I need to when I just swore at my screen as he went close to the edge at 1000fps? Hell no.
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | 23 September 2010 at 12:09 PM
I meant: having Ken Block an endorser...
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | 23 September 2010 at 12:10 PM
Who's subbing your posts James? Fire them. The headline needs changing.
Content is pointless if you don't learn anything about the brand/product, or of course, you're no more inclined to buy stuff. That's how we all make businesses out of this.
Posted by: Jim Dowling | 23 September 2010 at 01:10 PM
Who says so Jim?
If this was an ad that purely followed the kind of Japanese 'random video with logo' idea then maybe.
But the ad is a celebrity endorser of the brand in an ad that is about daredevil antics, fun and attitude for a brand that is trying to be all about fun and attitude.
What we are learning about the brand and product is their attitude, their style, and doing so in a way that inspires awe and engagement rather than boring them to death with product features (though I'm not saying that is what you are suggesting!).
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | 23 September 2010 at 02:07 PM
@Jim ... mebbe. But adage have already named it their best viral piece and the work has won plaudits.
My question I guess would be whether it deserves any if those plaudits. It's up for question - as the post suggests.
The ? Is the thing to pay may attention to in that headline chap!
Posted by: James Gordon-MacIntosh | 23 September 2010 at 09:40 PM
@rob ... Mate I'm really not sure.
The association with celebrity is all good. But I'm not convinced that it is either a particularly strong or resonant enough association if I'm honest.
Take a Nike or adidas and I get the reason for endorsement: sports or fashion performance. But DC with a rally driver? Just doesn't make sense in the same way as those traditional endorsements.
Doesn't do it for me chap.
Posted by: James Gordon-MacIntosh | 23 September 2010 at 09:44 PM
I'm not it will always work. Look at Gillette for irrelevant celebrity endorsements!
But in this case it is a brand that strives to be slightly (but not too far) on the outside. They have a celebrity who not only is exactly in the place they want their brand to be, but whom they already sponsor, and whom can make exciting content that hits their target audience right in the entertainment sweet spot.
Also. Having just checked Wikipedia... Ken Block was one of the founders of DC Shoes!
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | 24 September 2010 at 09:44 AM
I can see where you're coming from Rob, but remain unconvinced. Up to the point at which I learnt (from you) that Block is a DC co-founder. If I'd learnt that from the brand it'd have made more sense. Ho hum. Suspect this one will come down to subjective opinion ...
Posted by: James Gordon-MacIntosh | 24 September 2010 at 01:35 PM
I guess it depends what you are trying to achieve with the communication. For me I learn a lot about the brand, it's just emotional rather than rational. I don't buy trainers rationally...
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | 24 September 2010 at 03:12 PM
Like I said, Rob, it's subjective. I watched it again. I got sweet Fanny Adams about the brand.
I showed the film to half a dozen people in the office and a decent proportion thought that it was either for Ford or for Monster!
Actually, as I've watched it more, my opinion has, in anything, hardened.
Whether as a piece of "hey look what we associate ourselves with" marketing or as a piece of "this is all about our attitude and style" marketing, it's a bit crap, to be honest.
And I actually think a lot of that is in the delivery. Had it felt like an event that DC had put on for fans, it'd have worked harder: as a "we, as a brand, are committed to bringing you cool stuff".
As it is, it left me feeling like DC had sponsored a cool film that could, frankly, have been made anyway, by any of a myriad of brands.
On balance, therefore, I've come to the conclusion that it's rubbish.
Posted by: James Gordon-MacIntosh | 27 September 2010 at 01:18 PM
In a way though, one of the unique things about the brand IS Ken Block.
I think we have to agree to disagree on this one!
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | 28 September 2010 at 11:22 AM
I'm with you on that!
Case closed?
Posted by: James Gordon-MacIntosh | 28 September 2010 at 11:47 AM