With ChatGPT making a bit of a stir at the moment, we decided to put it to the test. We challenged the AI bot to write a blog on “The top five marketing disasters in history”, and then had our top copywriter bash out an article on the same topic. Below are the two blogs, which you can compare for yourself. To make it a bit more exciting, we won’t tell you until you’ve read them which is which. Can you tell the difference? And which do you prefer?
Blog A: The Top Five Marketing Disasters in History
Who doesn’t love a good marketing stunt? When done properly, they can amuse and entertain, generate buzz, and pull off a PR coup that people will be talking about for weeks, if not months. But for every moment of inspired creativity (like NowTV’s giant statue of sexy shirtless Jurassic Park Jeff Goldblum), there’s an idea of such appalling inception and diabolical execution that it really makes you wonder what’s wrong with some people. So now, in an act of gleeful schadenfreude, let’s dig into five marketing stunts that backfired hard:
5: Airline accidentally stages another 9/11
The covid lockdowns were particularly hard on airlines. With people not allowed to leave their homes, never mind their homelands, there wasn’t much demand for commercial aviation in 2020. So, in an effort to remain part of the conversation and remind people they were still there, an American airline called JetBlue sent out three planes to fly a tour around New York City at low altitude, part of a citywide initiative to applaud key workers and keep spirits up. However, many New Yorkers were quick to point out that commercial airliners flying low around the city was an image that invoked quite a different response, particularly as the flight path travelled right over the site of the former World Trade Centre. As one commenter put, it: “Lotta low-flying plane PTSD here in NYC but okay”. Other people pointed out that needlessly flying planes was environmentally unfriendly and a waste of fuel during an international crisis, and particularly untimely for a company that had just taken a huge bailout from the government.
4: Build-A-Bear bites off more than it can chew
Is there such a thing as a marketing stunt going too well? In 2018, Build-A-Bear Workshop, which allows children to build their own teddy bear, offered UK customers the chance to buy any bear for the price of their child’s age. Given that these bears usually retail for over £50, the possibility of getting one for a fiver drew in parents and children from far and wide. So, that’s a successful campaign, right? Well, here’s the thing that anyone who has ever set foot inside one of these workshops will already know – it takes a long time to make those bears. By the time the kids have finished picking out the right hat and jacket combo for their teddy, half an hour has easily vanished from your day. So, when people descended in their masses onto Build-A-Bear Workshops around the country, the lines to get in quickly backed up for over a mile. Parents with children found themselves standing around for hours, complaining of barely (pun intended) moving forward. Tensions rose and soon police had been called to supervise the commotion. Then the bad news began filtering down: the stores were running out of bears. Beleaguered employees had the grim task of telling people who had stood with their exhausted children in line for six hours that they wouldn’t be getting a bear after all. Fights began to break out, and as people surged forward there were fears of a crush happening. Several stores had to be closed outright to prevent any injury occurring. The company tried to mitigate the fallout by distributing gift vouchers to those still in line, but that wasn’t enough to stop parents criticising the poor planning and organisation of the event.
3: Burger King trolls itself
There is such a thing as trying to be too clever, and Burger King proved this spectacularly with its attempts to incorporate multi-platform cross channelling into an advert in 2017. The fifteen second ad, which would only run on compatible smart devices, simply shows a man holding a Whopper burger and lamenting that he doesn’t have enough time to explain all the ingredients in it, before saying, “Okay, Google: What is the Whopper burger?” The idea is that the ad then triggers Google to describe all the ingredients in it from an online search. It’s the kind of gimmick that looks clever on the face of it, but Burger King’s executives are clearly people who don’t spend a lot of time in the darker online forums. When the ad first ran, Google would pull the Wikipedia description, which went as follows: “The Whopper is a hamburger, consisting of a flame-grilled 4 ounce beef patty, sesame seed bun, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, pickles, ketchup and sliced onion.” Of course, trolls very quickly noticed the potential for mischief, and began editing the Whopper burger page to suggest that Burger King’s signature patty was made of children and topped with cyanide, among other things. Nobody had thought to liaise with Wikipedia until it was too late. Hundreds of bemused people posted recordings online of Google listing all manner of hideous ingredients, which wasn’t exactly the publicity BK wanted or expected. The ad was quickly pulled, and to this day the Wikipedia page for the Whopper burger is locked for editing.
2: Cartoon causes a bomb scare
It’s not always the worst ideas that lead to the worst outcomes. Sometimes a fairly harmless stunt can be interpreted in completely the wrong way, as we found out in 2007 when a marketing misadventure left two people in court on terrorism charges. As part of a guerrilla marketing campaign ahead of the launch of the new series of adult cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force, artists designed computer boards with lights depicting angry characters from the show, and surreptitiously placed them around several cities, including Boston in Massachusetts. For about two weeks everything was fine, until one of the boards was affixed to a column that supported a busy overpass road in the centre of Boston. Passers-by saw a metal box with circuitry and flashing lights and thought one thing: bomb. This rapidly escalated into a major police incident that saw residents evacuated and roads closed. Reports of the similar devices seen around the city began rolling in, and soon the whole city was on high alert. The aftermath saw Cartoon Network’s vice president resigning and the parent company fined $2 million by the city, and two marketing distributers were charged with terrorism offences (these were later dropped). Opinion remains divided on whether the marketing stunt was reckless given the paranoia of terrorism at the time, or whether the police overreacted. Either way, as one journalist wrote: “People are certainly talking about Aqua Teen Hunger Force after a publicity stunt that went spectacularly wrong, but marketing experts say paralyzing a city and landing two guys in court isn’t the best way to build a brand.”
1: CEO challenges people to steal his identity, gets identity stolen
As the CEO of LifeLock, a company specialising in protecting people from identity theft, Todd Davis knew he had to come up with a bold way to promote his service. What followed would certainly get everyone talking about him, but not in the way he had intended. Davis put up billboards all across America which contained his personal information, declaring that he was so confident in his company’s ability to prevent identity theft that he could blithely do this and expect no repercussions. The ads proved two things: firstly, that Todd Davis is a man of his word, because he did include his real information, and secondly that his faith in his company was misplaced, because within a few months fraudsters had managed to open up at least 13 fake bank accounts and loans in his name. The billboards were pulled down, but by this point the damage was done. Not only was LifeLock’s reputation in tatters, but the police publicly condemned the firm’s irresponsible ad, saying: “It’s unfortunate he chose to conduct business in that way. It’s not fair to [the banks] because they’re losing a pretty substantial amount of money”. LifeLock’s woes didn’t end there. The massive publicity around the backfiring stunt led to an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission for deceptive advertising, resulting in a $12 million fine. Davis stepped down as CEO, but in 2015 LifeLock was fined a whopping $100 million for misleading consumers with deceptive advertising and not securing personal data. All things considered, not a great outcome for a marketing stunt that probably seemed pretty funny at the time.
Blog B: The Top Five Marketing Disasters in History
Marketing is an essential aspect of any business, and companies invest significant resources into promoting their products or services. However, even the most well-planned marketing campaigns can go wrong, resulting in costly mistakes and significant reputational damage. Here are five of the most significant marketing disasters in history:
5: The New Coke
In 1985, Coca-Cola, the world’s most popular soft drink brand, decided to change its secret formula for the first time in 99 years. The new formula was called “New Coke,” and it was marketed as a sweeter, smoother alternative to the original. However, the public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, with many loyal customers feeling betrayed by the change. Coca-Cola quickly reintroduced the original formula as “Coca-Cola Classic,” but the damage had already been done, and the company lost a significant share of the market.
4: The McDonald’s “Rainforest” campaign
In 1990, McDonald’s launched an advertising campaign that depicted the company as environmentally friendly, with images of rainforests and happy, indigenous people. The campaign was intended to counter criticism of the company’s deforestation practices, but it backfired, with environmentalists and other critics claiming that the ads were misleading and that McDonald’s was actually responsible for significant deforestation. The campaign was eventually withdrawn, but the damage to the company’s reputation had already been done.
3: The Segway
In 2001, the Segway, a two-wheeled electric vehicle, was touted as a revolutionary new mode of transportation. The inventor, Dean Kamen, even claimed that the Segway would be “as big a deal as the personal computer.” However, the Segway failed to live up to the hype, with high prices and a lack of infrastructure making it unattractive to consumers. The Segway was a commercial failure and is now primarily used by mall cops and tour guides.
2: The BP Oil Spill
In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, owned by BP, suffered a massive explosion, resulting in one of the worst oil spills in history. The disaster resulted in the death of 11 workers and a massive environmental catastrophe. BP’s response to the crisis was widely criticized as slow and inadequate, and the company’s reputation was severely damaged. The incident resulted in several fines and settlements that cost the company billions of dollars, which is till date one of the costliest environmental disaster in history.
1: The Pepsi “Live for Now” campaign
In 2017, Pepsi launched a marketing campaign featuring reality TV star Kendall Jenner. The ad, which was intended to promote Pepsi’s “Live for Now” slogan, depicted Jenner leaving a photo shoot to join a protest, where she hands a can of Pepsi to a police officer, and the protesters erupt in cheers. The ad was widely criticized for being tone-deaf and insensitive, with many accusing Pepsi of co-opting the imagery of real-life protests for commercial gain. The ad was withdrawn, and Pepsi apologized for any offense caused.
These five examples illustrate the importance of thorough market research and careful planning in any marketing campaign. While it’s impossible to guarantee success, these examples show that a poor marketing decision can result in significant reputational damage and financial loss.
So, what did you think?
Could you guess which was written by ChatGPT, and which was written by our more human copywriter? We think you probably can tell, but here’s the answers to confirm it:
Blog A – Human
Blog B – ChatGPT
What did you think? Was one better than the other? Which did you prefer? Let us know!
