The Chicken Can Rap
I found BK’s interactive online ad Subservient Chicken to be very entertaining- so much so that I emailed it to my friends. Does this type of marketing make me want to buy their chicken sandwiches? Yes. Apparently I am not the only one who craves ‘having it my way’. BK marketing executives “describe the campaign as ‘a success’� (Anderson).
This was the first time I had logged on to Subservient Chicken and can’t believe that BK has had “396 million hits to date� (Anderson). I am not sure how that compares to other internet campaigns, but it sounds impressive.
In 2004, Quiznos Subs launched a similar type of ‘envelope pushing’ commercial ad with singing SpongMonkeys. Unlike the Subservient Chicken ad, this commercial actually grossed me out and I haven’t eaten at a Quiznos since. Surprisingly,
“Quiznos says sales are up (because of the ad). The New York Times, USA Today, AdAge, Cox newspapers and hundreds of Web sites are all talking about them.� (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/glad_u_asked022504.asp)
I guess scary rodents are able to sell food just as well as a chicken that raps (a command I told the chicken to do…and one that he/she did quite naturally.) I have yet to have the chicken ‘do the YMCA’ (Wikipedia).
I don’t consider myself an expert on one single subject, so it was a difficult task for me to post on Wikipedia. I did, however, work for Aveda Corporation for 8 years and was able to post a few tidbits about their endorsement of the CERES Principles and their innovative approach to aerosol hairspray. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aveda)
My entry was neutral because it contained facts opposed to comparing Aveda’s products to other products or posting unnecessary boasting about the company. I checked back and no one has disputed my entry. Afterwards I felt a strange sense of fulfillment for being a ‘published’ online writer.
I don’t see the same challenges with Wikipedia that others do “the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used� (Lanier). I acknowledge that a free online encyclopedia that “anyone can edit� (Wikipedia) is conducive to inaccuracies and chaos, but isn’t that the risk of any collectivistic or groupthink enterprise?
When I need a quick overview on a subject for my own personal interest, I use Wikipedia. But when I need accurate information, I research more reliable and traditional sources.
Comments
Boy, did your entry make me laugh! I have a special place in my heart for the Quizno's spongemonkeys. My husband, who loves Quiznos, was spooked by them as well. When they disappeared only to replaced by the dumb talking babies, I felt a palpable loss. "I'm sorry you feel sad," my husband said, "but those other things freaked too many people out."
I kind of didn't want to buy a chicken sandwich after becoming fond of the subservient chicken. Why sacrifice that kind of talent for just one tasty treat? Try the Taco Bell command.
I like the fact that Wikipedia attempts to be neutral and asks for sources. I also like that it ranks articles for readability and documentation.
Posted by: Ramonac | April 1, 2007 11:32 PM