suicidal orange and stuff that's viral

A little while ago, a Swedish agency called Peacock visited our office in Copenhagen to offer their services. They'd even made an advert, which has since been named 'suicidal orange'. It's really good, but maybe not quite us. Have a look for yourself and see what you think:

After we met them, they posted it on youtube. We posted it on our own blog too, seeing as we liked it. We wanted to see what people thought of it. Some of our readers liked it and some didn't. Then the other day I noticed that the clip had gradually started to appear on advertising blogs (some links at the bottom of this post), some of which falsely credited us with producing it, which of course is unfair on the people at Peacock (can't find a URL for them anywhere).

I guess that when it started to spread on the web, it became 'viral'. 'Viral' is my least favourite term in the pantheon of adspeak, but it did make me take five minutes to have a think about how stuff 'becomes' viral? How does it spread?

The answer is, of course, that nobody really knows. Nobody can guarantee viralness. In this case, the fact that it's a bit weird and that it's also at odds (tonally) with what people have seen from us before means that it's interesting/unusual. Sometimes weird is good. Unexpected is good. So I'm guessing that some people are more likely to want to watch it than an innocent ad that features a pile of fruit and a packshot. People like new and unusual, especially on the web.

Of course, I'm still extremely wary of those who talk about 'viral'. I believe that the people who email me every day, telling me that they can make us excellent viral clips at the drop of a hat, are missing the point. You can't make things viral to order.

But you can do something else if you want to make stuff that people will send to their friends and post on their blogs. I think it's fairly simple. The more stuff you make, the more chance there is of something turning out to be good. And then people will watch it. So in 2007 we will be making more stuff, writing more stuff, posting more stuff and filming more stuff. Some of it will be rubbish and some of it might work. And seeing as we don't know which bits will work until we've done them, I guess we'd better get cracking.

*****

A few places I found that were talking about the suicidal orange.

http://69.36.40.53/archives/2007/03/innocent_pitch.php
http://www.psfk.com/2007/03/innocent_ad.html
http://catchupblog.typepad.com/catch_up_blog/2007/03/innocent_smooth.html
http://infopub.blogspot.com/2007/03/pub-innocent-smoothies.html
http://blogs.chemistrygroup.co.uk/nathang/?p=252
http://shedwa.blogspot.com/2007/03/innoncent-smoothies-are-not-so-innocent.html
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2007/03/orange_faces_de.html
http://www.adrants.com/2007/03/orange-ponders-life-after-death-before-be.php
http://www.adverblog.com/archives/003002.htm
http://caffeinegoddess.blogspot.com/2007/03/innocent-smoothies-ads.html

Comments

[Seb]

hm. don't like that film so much. can't give you a reason why. maybe it's because i really like the tagline. "it's a great feeling to be innocent", what a simple and billiant truth. there is so much more in this sentence than a suicidal orange. maybe it's that i was just disappointed with the outcome of this great sentence. i would love to work on this sentence.
and the viral thing. a lot of clients ask us to do "some funny viral films to post on youtube". the point is that "just funny" or "just shocking" are not working. you have to have some interesting truth or story to tell. and you have to tell it in an interesting and new way. same rules as in advertising. but perhaps most important: be interactive. like the great Subservient Chicken for Burger King or Counterfeit Mini for BMW Mini. Or have the perfect plan. Like the Ron Hammer Campaign (http://www.ronhammer.com/) for Hornbach. this is perhaps the best planned viral thing I came across in a long time. they had a film, a website, a song, a music video, an own wikipedia entry (now deleted), posters in teen magazines and got the documentary on at least 5 main broadcasting stations in germany. brilliant.

[writer]

I hate viral as well. Clients totally don't get it. They sit around the boardroom and demand viral this and viral that. Viral happens. You can't make it.

If I jumped up on the boardroom table and ripped all my clothes off and someone filmed it, that might go viral. If I dragged a Luger out of my folio and shot them, that might go viral.

But their stupid ad isn't going to go viral.

[Marcus Brown]

Is this the long bearly understandable blog post from 10 hours ago? Not that long. And I understood it.

[Rob & Robbie]

It's a funny clip - obviously not on brand - but funny all the same. I particularly enjoyed the mancunian/nordic accent!

Re. virals; we must've presented a bzillion concepts over the years, but the agency we used to work for has always sold them to the client as "and here's an idea for a viral...", and - crucially - also presented a single production cost. This means the client then has to believe that the thing will go viral, before they buy it. As you point out, this is unlikely.

I found this really annoying - for this reason. The great thing about many things-intended-to-go-viral is that they're cheap to produce. And, the ones that work reach LOADS of people. So it always seemed to me to be a no-brainer. Just get a client to give you a budget to keep making stuff until you strike gold.

It hasn't happened yet - but fingers crossed!

[Tait Ischia]

The thing about viral is that if you make it to be viral, it will fail. It's a little like making something 'cool'. Things that are deemed cool were never called cool. Spreading viral ads is the best form of quality control. If an ad is mind-blowing, it will spread like wildfire. If it's crap, it won't get off the ground.

My suggestion to anyone wanting a video to go viral: spend money on making it quality. Save money on media, not production.

[danburgess]

do lots of stuff. here here!

[Amelia]

Funny, I saw the ad on CatchUp Blog and was amazed as she was convinced that it was done by you boys.

Re - virals, so obvious that I almost do not want to post it, but if you could not imagine forwarding something on then it is highly unlikely that anyone else will. The other thing is that importance of seeding - we've got some great Wayne Rooney Coke Zero out-takes from an ad we just shot that we want to upload, I hope that people enjoy them/find them funny and pass them along because they are just very cool. But at the moment I am looking at the key Man U and England footie blogs so we can give them the info.

[ted]

Hey Dave.

Here’s my two penneth’s worth.

Penneth one…
I like the ad. I like that it reminds me of Michel Gondry’s stuff, very home made but with a high degree of craft and attention to detail. Ultimately I think it’s too ‘down beat’ for innocent though, where as I’d like to think we’re an ‘upbeat’ brand.

Penneth two…
The viral bit is really interesting. There seems to be a load more of Russell’s stuff blurring coming up here. It’s fascinating that quite quickly people started to talk about this ad as being something innocent have made themselves and the integrated campaign bit as being a new innocent strategy. If you relate this to stuff like the VW terrorist ad and the Starbucks leaked email I think it’s going to get harder and harder to tell what’s coming from a brand and what’s coming from its audience.

http://tinyurl.com/2zpgdu
http://tinyurl.com/2p3a26

We know that the VW ad was a spoof but no one seems to be sure about the Starbucks thing at the minute. As the production values of UGC (hardly noticeable in VW, if Starbucks is also a spoof it shows a step on in the level of brand insight/ replicated tone of voice/ research into cc lists etc) get better and better it’s going to harder and harder to tell commissioned work from non-commissioned. Especially where brands actively try to covertly seed stuff outside of their official channels in order to make it look more authentic. I’ve worked on many projects in the past where the end result has been to create a web space in the guise of a brand advocate where as it’s actually come from a commissioned agency. It’s almost like devil’s advocate. How do we know that VW and Starbucks weren’t behind these when other brands have already done similar? The fact they stoop so low and we trust they wouldn’t go that low? What happens when someone gets the balance right and it’s virtually impossible to tell? Would we believe the brand disclaiming ownership or assume they’re working on all publicity equalling good publicity?

I think the fact that people have to really question this stuff shows a shift in balances in itself. Like George Bush with his photoshopped upside down kids book. We know it’s photoshopped but we also know he’s stupid so we question it. And Nike’s Ronaldinho cross bar video, we know that Ronaldinho is good but we also know that you can do pretty much anything in CGI these days so more questions and blur.

That’s my thoughts anyway.
Pete

[ted]

I don’t think the suicidal oranges are in danger of causing us any kind of harm or conspiracy by the way. I just think it brings up some very interesting questions.
I’ve also posted something on the above here.
http://tinyurl.com/2h76qu

I said I’d never blog I know. I’m a hypocrite. It’s quite fun though.

[Scamp]

interesting point ted makes - "it’s going to get harder and harder to tell commissioned work from non-commissioned"

how does that make you guys feel?

were you not just a little bit cross about the Peacock film?

they walked your dog.

or, took your baby to the shops and dressed it up in a way you didn't think was quite 'him'...

[dan at innocent]

Not cross at all. In fact, I'm always amazed and slightly flattered that people would want to spend time making innocent stuff without being asked. Of course, if they'd said that we were evil Satan worshipping goat f*ckers, then I might have been more perturbed. But I like their clip. I just don't think they got 'us' quite right.

[Joran]

Hey Dan, my sister saw you talk in Belgium I think it was. Said it was good. Been enjoying your blog since then.

Great idea/take on "mass viral manufacture". I enjoyed the orange ad, it's a different direction from the Innocent ads. By the way, good on you for YouTubing them.

With the whole question of what is viral, memes, travelling ideas and sparks: do you think Innocent is partly a brand vehicle? - http://www.szpil.com/2007/03/26/the-brand-vehicle-theory/

Maybe Innocent as a brand naturally translates or adapts well for viral mediums?

[dan at innocent]

I guess we are a bit of a brand vehicle, although I am not smart enough to indulge in too much of this brand analysis stuff. It's even harder for me to analyse innocent, seeing as it's been a part of my life since it was very small. I have little perspective.

But I think we have tapped into a general feeling that it should be easy to do yourself some good; it should be possible to work somewhere that endeavours to be good to the planet; it should be possible to run a successful and growing business without trampling all over people or natural resources.

We try to do all of those things, and so they'll obviously be transmitted in the way we do business and the way we talk to people.