Qantas asked the people of the internet to think of names for its new Dreamliner fleet earlier this year and yesterday the final choices were unveiled. It's a relatively safe selection, and Flighty McFlightface did not make the cut, despite its popularity.
As Hidden Characters founder and managing director Annalise Brown says, it's a predictable outcome, so perhaps Qantas had learned from other brands' mistakes when it comes to putting their brand in the hands of consumers.
Flighty McFlightface is of course a reference to Boaty McBoatface, a name now embedded into contemporary culture. Boaty was the result of the British Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) asking the people to nominate names for its latest research vessel in 2016.
The public went rogue and threw support behind the comedy name, however NERC opted not to go for the popular choice and the vessel was instead given the much more sedate name RRS Sir David Attenborough. The Boaty name was relegated to the RRS' submersibles, despite enormous public support.
“Qantas was never going to let themselves be backed into a corner to choose a bad name, even Alan Joyce said stupid names wouldn’t be considered,” says Brown.
“Qantas was quite transparent with how they would run it and the kinds of names they would accept, Flighty McFlightface was never going to be one of them,” she adds.
The competition attracted 60,000 names, but the airline ignored many names, such as Hills Hoist, Don Bradman, Vegemite, Steve Irwin and Bundaberg Rum, in its carefully curated shortlist of 24.
The idea is to foster consumer interaction by appearing to hand over control to consumers. It's an act that is fraught with risk and more often than not ends in PR disaster.
While the final names for Qantas may not be “outrageous” or “creative”, the outcome is far more palatable at Qantas HQ than some examples in the past.
Aside from Boaty, when McDonald's New Zealand asked people to name a new menu range, the likes of 'Ronald's creamy surprise' made the list. Mountain Dew's attempt to nuture consumer interaction landed with 'Hitler did nothing wrong' as one of the names put forward for the drink.
Companies continue to be lured by the false expectation that these marketing gimmicks will end in some kind of “holy grail of marketing”, says Red Engine creative director Mitch Alison.
“The thing that brands are trying to get out of it is essentially the holy grail of marketing; a two-way dialogue that both encourages consumer participation and facilitates brand awareness,” he says.
Alison argues that in most cases it is not a malicious act, just the inner child coming out in a clutch for online attention. Brown says consumers are more likely to “go off the rails” when a brand is out of touch with how the public feels about them.
“Often the story becomes about the brand being ridiculed in a salacious manner, as opposed to it involving the consumer as a great tool,” Brown says.
“There has to be an alignment and understanding of what consumers' sentiment is. Brands need to be spot on about this and be prepared for idiots. So often they're quite naïve about how things can go horribly wrong,” Brown says.
A slippery slope
Marcel Sydney ECD Scott Huebscher calls it a “slippery slope” which can see the company come out as a “cheat”, or cause disappointment if the pop culture choice isn’t used.
“NERC could have kept the Boaty name and put a smile on the internet's face for a day, but instead it was a real missed opportunity. They gave one of their submersibles the Boaty name, which just feels like a weak cheat,” Huebscher says.
Similar could be said for Qantas, which made a final selection that would likely have been the same if HQ had chosen it.
Examples of brands attempting to rouse a conversation through consumer interaction comes in all shapes and sizes. In the best case, a Boaty will be born and the public are happy, in the worst case, a brand's reputation is shattered.
For example, Taxis NSW asked the public to share stories about its service and found itself knee-deep in rape accusations. The NYPD encouraged people to share photos with the force and police brutality images surfaced.
Walkers' Crisps in the UK also asked consumers to send in photos of themselves, which would be displayed on digital ads, however people uploaded photos of murderers and Bin Laden instead, and the campaign was pulled.
Another example of the public hijacking a competition was when the New Zealand government invited people to redesign its flag. The result was kiwi birds with lazor beam eyes and cartoon sheep.
Landor executive director of strategy Simon Bell says it's usually “a big waste of time”, so why do brands continue? In what circumstances can it work and how?
A cash reward helps, and the feeling of genuine participation is important.
“If you want real brand creativity and connectivity, you better believe the public needs a reward,” says Brown.
The crinkle-cut hero
In 2009, Australian confectionery brand Smith's launched “Do us a flavour”, a campaign that asked the public to create their own flavour of chips with winning recipe to be stocked and sold by Smith's. The prize was $40,000 and 1% of the sales revenue of the winning flavour.
While it went a little deeper than simply asking people of Australia to come up with a name, the campaign was a success. The public took it seriously and the final four flavours were Caesar Salad, Late Night Kebab, Butter Popcorn and BBQ Coat of Arms.
In the end Caesar Salad won, and Sydney mother of two Aline Pascuzzo became a crinkle-cut hero.
As Qantas demonstrated, if you can't trust the public not to run away with ideas that will reflect badly on the brand, parameters should be put in place at the start.
“Contingencies need to be in place, if you do it you need to have your shit together,” Alison says.
“If it's really going to work, use something like multiple choice and give options so you can shape the message without pretending you’re giving the customer control; I'm always incredulous about how much a brand is really opening itself up,” he adds.
Huebscher echoes this sentiment.
“What they are really doing is secretly hoping that someone will suggest a name that they already want to use. It’s the same when my wife asks me where I want to go for dinner on a Saturday night. She doesn’t really want to know what I feel like eating. She just wants me to guess where she wants to eat, so she can agree with me,” he says.
In the case of Qantas, the company was clever enough to hide names that had already been suggested, instead, internally reviewing names and releasing a shortlist without the inclusion of rogue suggestions.
“Naming is not a particularly successful tactic, so many things can go wrong. Involving the consumer can be a great tool, but its got to be in the right way at the right time with the right brand,” says Brown.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.