Christmas Cheer

by Lachlan McArthur

Here in the UK we have been going on booze buying frenzy.

One of the larger off license chains Threshers, produced a voucher providing 40% off all wine purchases in the lead up to Christmas.

The voucher was intended to be a small offer for suppliers and friends, so it was not advertised in any way by Threshers.

Enter the blogosphere.

Stormhoek, a Threshers supplier, posted the offer including a download of the voucher on their corporate blog.

Hugh MacLeod picked up on it and published this post in his Gaping Void blog.

The story got picked up by other bloggers, then it went mainstream - first with the BBC, then the national papers, with stories in the Daily Mirror and the Times.

Hugh MacLeod has been following the progress of this story, so if you are interested in viral marketing I would suggest reading the series of posts he has written on this, that can all be found at Gaping Void.

This is one of the best examples of the viral power of the online community I have seen in the UK.

Initial reactions were, "is it real or some kind of scam or hoax?" (It is unfortunate that we are all so scam weary on the internet that we always look a gift horse in the mouth).

People quickly discovered though that it was a genuine offer, and the frenzy began.

Websites, particularly, Stormhoek that had the voucher available for download were flooded with visitors.

At one point the store finder section of the Thresher website collapsed under the weight of people trying to find the closest store to use their voucher.

Email boxes were flooded by people passing the information on to friends and family.

Nothing motivates a Brit more than cheap booze, particularly at this time of year, and it is something you want to share.

It is a lot more fun being drunk when everyone else is also drunk. The mainstream media have focused on the impact that this will have on Thresher's numbers with a very gloomy output; the following is quoted from the Daily Mirror article:

"Off licence chain Thresher is bracing itself for a financial disaster after its "limited" 40 per cent discount offer went worldwide on the internet."

A spokesman for the Thresher Group, which includes Victoria Wine, Bottoms Up, Haddows, The Local and Wine Rack, said:

"We are scratching our heads vigorously wondering how we can meet this level of demand and we are waiting with bated breath to see just how many customers take advantage of the discount and what it will mean for us financially."

Threshers have just learned of the awesome information sharing power of the online community. Publicly they may be slightly cautious. We are much more likely to be endeared to a company that has lived up to there promise, despite facing hardships as a result, but I am sure behind closed doors they are jumping for joy.

They offer a standard 3 for the price of 2 deal all year around, so the incremental discount amounts to 7% which is not anywhere near as daunting as 40%, and any loss on margin, will be made up by the unprecedented surge in the volume of sales.

In fact their biggest problem is in meeting the demand at many of their stores. Then there is the ongoing benefit.

Threshers is firmly on the map - everyone knows who they are, and where the nearest local store is. No doubt many will be back again. It will be interesting to see how they continue to capitalise on this positive publicity.

So Threshers won, the consumer won, who else won?

Stormhoek.

They piggy-backed publicity on the voucher, and are prominently mentioned in every blog and news article about this offer. Most of the consumers who are taking advantage of the offer downloaded the voucher off their website, and it was no accident that their original post was picked up by the blogging community, as they were well aware of the viral power of the internet and have been working hard to develop relationships within the blogosphere for some time.

Well this Christmas was the big publicity pay out for all their efforts and although they may have been surprised by the scale of the response, (it is impossible not to be), I have a feeling that they knew exactly what they were doing. I will be very interested to see the impact it has on UK sales of Stormhoek wine in 2007.

I am off to use my voucher before it all runs out.

2006/12/05 | permalink | comments (0) | trackbacks (0)

Comments

RSS to Email

Get our latest blog posts delivered straight to your inbox.

eMarketing News

Subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter which is packed with interesting eMarketing news, views and other quirky titbits.

January

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

« Dec

Feb »

Recent Comments

Kat on Engaging as a Company

I agree with you. There are some things that should ideally not be discussed by an employee in the public sphere.
Would a communications policy have stopped the said journo from speaking out? He/she must have known a huge risk was being taken? I suppose it's also an incredibly difficult thing to predict. The lack of control can be alarming.
I'm definitely interested in seeing a more specific list, so if you find it do share.
Thank you for your comments :). Here's hoping there's a good coffee shop close to you..
vincent on Engaging as a Company

I guess the mark of a well crafted brand starts at HR policy for new recruits - ensuring that they fit the brand's/corporate's persona. So in that sense yes you could argue that left to their own devices employees would, regardless of an online communications policy, communicate in a style the sponsor would approve of. Not sure if that's always the case but I'm inclined to agree with this generalization.
I think what is also important is that the individual writing within the bounds of a sponsor's site does so in a restricted locale. You can police your own domain if you're a corporate, you can't necessarily control the individuals mouth outside of it. For instance on twitter, personal blogs and forums. Owing to the nature of niche stardom you could argue that the employee comes to represent the brand, more so than that personifies the brand in organic conversation with consumers and would carry significant weight both within corporate sites and externally. Making some individuals very wary to write for their companies at all.
For instance in our not too distant past a prominent journo got the boot for publishing his gripes with his employers and their professional ability - he was promptly fired...He would no doubt have been policed on a company blog but owing to the fact that he chose to represent the company elsewhere he took his brand and the papers brand with him - dragging both through the mud as traipsed on towards epic-failuredom...
So to come back to a point, there is definitely a sense that the policies as listed above are quite ambiguous. Even you yourself suggest that requisite legalese is absent, and I have to assume that such legalese would include a fairly long list of do's and dont's. I have a list somewhere laying about which dictates in a very bland corporate fashion how to represent the brand in public - if I find it I will share it with you.
Perhaps its worthwhile to enforce points like "don't tell secrets" and my own favourite, "for the love of god don't gripe about the boss who you've publicly named online"...
That's my mental-riff for the day, I'm afraid I veered rather uncharitably off course but such is the nature of thought.
Now if only the company I worked for had some decent coffee!!
Kat on Engaging as a Company

Transparency is a key issue - as is allowing people to carve their own niche.
My thinking is that people engage with a personality - an individual personality - in conversation more than with a collective. It's just easier. A company personality surely reflects the people who work there as well as a crafted (constructed?) image that the stakeholders choose to present. While you want engagement it's not the same as speaking to an individual.
There are definite risks involved - but I would lean towards allowing people to carve a niche.
vincent on Engaging as a Company

Couldn't have said it better. Nice post, it is most certainly something corporates are going to struggle with. How much transparency is too much? Who should be allowed to represent a brand and to what extent should the individual be given the opportunity to carve their own niche rather than extol the virtues of the mother - brand?
Who knows. We shall soon see as this year pans out and we find out how the big media players tackle the rise of the cost effective digital media channel.
Kat on Engaging as a Company

It is a tough issue, and I can understand why you've never published. I would encourage you to do so though - you probably have a feeling for when your writing reflects your voice and when it doesn't - and the rewards are worth it.
Thanks for reading Wendy. :)

More photos of the QuirkStars At Play

Name:
Friends of Quirk
Websites:
www.quirk.biz

Skribit: Social Suggestions

Name:
E-mail:
Url:
Comments:
Markup guide: makes text bold // makes text italic // -- creates a link -- (two dashes, no http://)
Remember personal info?
Notify me of follow-up comments?
SPAMCHECK:
Captcha:

Christmas Cheer

by Lachlan McArthur

Comments

Subscribe

RSS to Email

eMarketing News

January

Archives

Categories

Recent Posts

Recent Comments