So Facebook and Pepsi are running a "design the Pepsi can" partnership. It's a terrific idea in theory. I loved the thought of designing my own can and came up with an idea right away. Unfortunately, the execution doesn't work out so well.
Problems right off the bat:
-You have to log in to facebook to see the ad (why limit the potential number of viewers? Why make it hard to link to the ad?)
-The ad itself is really small, with lots of teensy blue cans. I could see no way to enlarge the screen. It's difficult to see what others have done with their designs and impossible to read their hometowns. The text is tiny and light grey - the terms and conditions nearly impossible to read.
-Users choose from "Your tools" or "Our tools" to help you design the template. Again, good idea in theory. But when I tried to download their template so I could use my own tools, IE7 wouldn't let me. I had to open Firefox to get the template downloaded. Once I did that, it was an .eps extension, and none of my standard desktop apps could open it. User experience testing is a must for user-generated campaigns.
-I switched to their tools. You have a color palate of 5 shades of blue, a white and a gray. You can drag one of about 50 different clip-art-like "decals" onto the canvas, and they're all done in a similar style. You can change their size or rotate them. However, you can't paste in your own images, and there's only one paintbrush style - the spray can.
- It's like they've divided the world into professional designers who have all the expensive software, and complete numbskulls who can only think in monotones and drag and drop images. The real win in user-generated content is with the people who _could_ have become graphic designers if they wanted to, but instead they opted to teach math to sixth graders. It's with the people who _could_ have become journalists, but instead they went into the restaurant business.
- The end result of the "Our Tools" designs is that they are practically clones of each other. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest they look like they have been planted by the ad agency and not made by real people, because I didn't see enough that would never have made it onto the shelf in a million years. You know, the user-generated content that looks like crap? That makes the campaign look authentic?
- Obviously Pepsi wanted some real control over the look of their can. If you're gonna do that, why have a UGC (user-generated content) competition at all? Or, why not just say that entries will be judged based on how well they fit with the Pepsi look, instead of insisting that all entries fit with the Pepsi look? This really kills the chances that they will ever end up with something brilliant or innovative.
- When I tried to submit my design, I entered my email address and bithdate (OK, not my real birthdate) and signed off on their TOS, but then I was told I had to try again because I needed to be a registered Pepsi member. With a registration wall this high, only a small number of dedicated unemployed people with a lot of free time on their hands must actually make submissions. They must be wondering why they are not getting many submissions. I guess this whole campaign is just about getting PII (personally identifiable information). Silly me to think it might have actually been an innovative campaign. I'm downgrading them from a C to a D.
- This beggars belief, but the amount of information I had to submit at Pepsi was really unbelievable. How much Pepsi do I drink, home address, etc. etc. And although your home address is not a required field, when I tried again to submit my design, I was told that my address information was incomplete and I would have to try again. This was a dealbreaker for me. I finally gave up.
This campaign could have been an authentic way to get good ideas from a broader creative community than Pepsi normally has access to. Unfortunately, rather than thinking of their community as people who could actually make a useful contribution, they see us as merely consumers - as Jerry says, gullets with wallets. The lack of readability and usability kills the play experience right from the start.
Even with just word of mouth as their goal, not creating a place where people can link to their can (and point to it - what about a Pepsi can badge to stick on my MySpace profile and blog?) to show it off is a big mistake. Then the registration wall prevents any real contributions from being made (I get it that they need your address for you to win, but what about just to play?)
Grade for this campaign: D
Want me to critique your (or a competitor's) word of mouth campaign on my blog? Send email to isabel at isabel hilborn dot com.
The text is difficult to read. The text and background do not use high contrast.
Posted by: Business Education | June 06, 2007 at 05:39 AM