ruby tuesday attempts 'viral'.
Ruby Tuesday has a new online campaign. We're supposed to believe that they've blown up the wrong restaurant, in a publicity stunt gone awry.
Instead, it feels like a 'viral' attempt gone wrong. All of the right ingredients: explosions, humor, video and microsites. But those are just tools. Former Plaid intern Katie says it's lame. I agree.
Here's where they went wrong:
+ The content doesn't seem aimed at a specific audience. Tweens? Twenty somethings? Families? This doesn't seem to speak to any of them directly.
+ What's the message? Anything about the food? Or the dining experience? Is "change" enough to bring me into your restaurant?
+ It's not believable. Or "hilarious" as the YouTube poster suggests. It could have been produced in a manner that left the viewer thinking "is this for real?" (Think of the Burger King campaigns.) Or it could have left the viewers understanding that it wasn't anywhere near real, but actually hilarious. (Think Paris Hilton for prez)
I'm curious to know what Ruby Tuesday has paid for the (currently) 13K views on YouTube. And how this differentiates them from Applebees, TGI Fridays, and BENNIGANS.
Labels: ads, hospitality, viral, yummyfood
posted by darryl ohrt @ 7:15 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
| Darryl Ohrt |
| David Plain |
| Justus Johnson |
| Rob Biddiscombe |
| Matt Hunsberger |
| Steph Fuda |
| RJ Fenn |
| Sara Champion |
| ATOM Site Feed |
YouTube homepage promotion in the top spot goes for $250K per day, which includes some banners, I think. (That was their going rate about a year and a half ago.)
Well, one difference between them and Bennigan’s–Ruby’s still in business. And how is it ‘viral’ when you run TV a month in advance announcing the event?