Authenticity v. Control

There is an excellent article available online from the LA Times that details Jack in the Box's recent forays into the arena of social media. The company's Hang In There Jack campaign was launched on mainstream media (a Super Bowl ad of all things) and told the story of the company's fictional CEO (Jack) slipping into a coma after being struck by a bus. In the months since, consumers have been encouraged to discuss Jack's imminent death (or coming miraculous recovery!) on the campaign's microsite, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Basically, the whole gamut of Web 2.0 golden children. A few weeks ago, Jack was revived and helped usher in the company's total branding overhaul (which includes the spiffy new logo below).


The author compares JitB's results to the experiences of Skittles during their recent attempts to bring social media and their brand closer together. In each case, the brand's experienced a surge in traffic and generated content, though not always in a positive manner.

For example:

"Alexut from Utah wrote: 'Jack in the Box killed people. They have poor sanitary habits and spread disease across the nation. Plus it's disgusting food.'

And of course a thousand variations of "Jack sucks!," which is a less than optimum take-away from a marketer's perspective.

What's going on here? Call it the search for authenticity."

Both cases highlight the potential and the pitfalls of allowing your brand to be placed in the hands of the public. Sometimes, a marketer can successfully engage with consumers at a level that is more personal, and arguably more meaningful than ever before. And on the other hand, the brand can find itself the victim of online vandalism. It is an issue of control, and willingness to let go. Do you trust the public enough to take care of your brand, or do you need to censor their ability to interact with it?

The problem is that these sort of brand excursions are still a novelty. They attract the masses, yes, but (in many cases) not out of interest for the brand, rather out of the ability to be heard in a non-traditional space. When the novelty of the situation wears off- much like the growing stability of Wikipedia articles -then the trolls that bark out profanity on a candy website will move along to the next venue. The results, luckily, have drawn large enough numbers to encourage an uknown number of brands to follow the JitB and Skittle lead (right now, unseen by us, dozens of marketing teams are drafting replicant ideas), and this growing familarity brings both good and bad. Good, in that the trolls will either be less focused, or less amused by their own actions once these sorts of campaigns become more commonplace. And bad, when the ideas become dampened by me-toos and thus, less astoundingly effective in generating traffic volume.