Thought I'd weigh in here since my column seems to be part of this debate. (And, yeah, I wish it wasn't behind the Adweek firewall so you could read my comments in context.) I totally agree with the statement Grant made above saying, "We have to change our risk tolerances. We have to understand that the marketer's work, once so dominated by risk avoidance, is now much more about risk management." What I disagree with, of course, is the sentence that directly follows: "If Adweek doesn't get this, what hope do we have of persuading the client?" If you read my stuff over time, you'll see that in general, I think clients and agencies should be taking more risks, but in this instance, I begged to differ.

What I objected to in my column was that Chevy in effect gave consumers the keys to the car, giving them all the tools they needed to trash the brand, a brand that has been associated with some real hot button topics lately and that was a natural for negative comments. Chevy aided and abetted the persistence of a stereotype. That's a hell of a lot different than being ever-vigilant about what people are saying about your brand and being able to respond. There's smart risk in the world and not-so-smart risk, and when you look at the situation regarding this particular brand, and this particular category, I think you can see why this effort might fall into the latter category.

Let's remember that the point of Chevy's experiment was to promote that the new Tahoe is more environmentally responsible, but because of all of the anti-SUV ads that were created out there, that message had trouble getting through. I didn't discover that was the point until I was doing research for the column, and what consumers–except for ones already deep in the consideration set–are going to do that research?

I'm not saying that clients shouldn't take risks. They absolutely need to. But they have to assess how appropriate a risk is to a given category and situation. In a world that thinks of SUVs as gas-guzzling global-warming instigators, this was not the best brand, at the best time, for a company-supported consumer-generated media effort.

CPT

Traditional Marketing is about:
1. Products (and services) as the unit of exchange
2. The benefit is the product as sold
3. The customer is a passive purchaser
4. Value is determined by the marketer
5. The marketer is in charge of the exchange
6. Value is created by the exchange

In contrast, the New Dominant Logic is about:
1. Longer-term benefits provided by the products as the unit of exchange
2. The benefit is the usage experience including the embedded product
3. The customer is an active co-creator
4. Value is "value in use" as determined by the customer
5. The customer is just as in charge of the exchange
6. Value is what the product enables over the longer-term.

So what you ask?

Well, the customer is already having these conversations whether marketers like it or not. McKinsey estimates that 60-70% of purchase decisions are heavily influenced by WOM recommendations. Cap Gemini has shown that WOM is the second most used source of new car information and easily the most influential. And the London School of Economics has shown the power of customer advocacy in driving automotive sales growth. Marketers routinely over estimate how much customers use their communications and how much customers value them. Sure, the majority of customers won't want to actually get INVOLVED in generating public marketing, but as Chevy has shown, a significant number will. And many of these are just the sort of customer advocates that Chevy desperately needs right now to drive customer-generated sales.

It is better for marketers to recognise their changing role and to experiment with it, than to just ignore it until the New Dominant Logic is breathing down their necks like an angry 800lb Gorilla.

Graham Hill
Independent Marketing Consultant

Good example of such an attempt: A few years ago the microbrew trend had stolen all the buzz from traditional beers. Budweiser (I think) ran hilarious ads flashing text across industrial-education-type footage of the brewing process set to pseudo-martial music. IT'S TIME FOR A GOOD OLD MACROBREW….BREWED IN VATS…THE SIZE OF RHODE ISLAND. Pictures of ladies in hairnets handling bottles, giant metal vats, streams of trucks leaving the plant. I don't know if it worked, but something like that might be a good idea for Chevy.

Dino, that was my first reaction, too. Thanks, Grant

fouros, thanks, "it's not a principle unless it's cost you something" is a great line. (It reminds me of protesters who got angry when they got arrested.) And I loved your ad, especially when the pistons appears to have achieved sync with the music, brilliant, sir, brilliant! Thanks, Grant

Tom A., this is a really important position to stake out, esp. as cocreation begins to harden into orthodoxy, sure as shootin cc is going to get used where it shouldn't and that's because your skepticism is not being heard. Still and all, I think it's a great idea when it's done well, and easily the coming thing. Thanks, Grant

Tom G. Thanks. Blogger's sync! Or, the wisdom of "our crowd." Best, Grant