Further iSnack2.0 thoughts

Continuing on from my previous post

Has anyone actually seen an advertisement for iSnack2.0? The “name this product” campaign got a fair amount of air time, so it seems odd that they’d announce the actual name and not have it accompanied by a storm of ads that started at exactly the same minute.

Unless, that is, they intended people to talk about the name for a while before they started advertising it.

Here’s my hypothesis. It’s largely a post hoc attribution of cleverness to marketing people so it may or may not be accurate, but this is what it looks like to me.

Kraft’s plan all along was to give the new product a daggy name that would cause a storm for a week or so after it was announced. But they would carefully distance Kraft itself from the name during that time, to keep the emotional association to a minimum.

The name came from a competition in which customers named the product. And the announcement was made with pictures of the winner of the competition. Over time, people will subconsciously blame him for the stupid name instead of Kraft. Obviously Kraft chose the winner from a large pool of entries, so logically the blame is all on them, but brand recognition has very little to do with logic. The image of the daggy guy holding the jar of daggy spread is what people will remember, especially if they don’t do any other advertising to associate it with Kraft – which, from what I’ve seen so far, they haven’t. They’ve even noncommittally acknowledged that the name didn’t go down very well.

So here’s my prediction. In a week or two, after most of the hatred has died down, they’ll start a lighthearted and self-deprecating ad campaign, that acknowledges that the name is silly, but it’s still tasty so you should buy it anyway.

Bonus points if they use the line “iSnack2.0 – It’s cheesy!” or a variant thereof.

The result will be that people will give Kraft credit for being good sports about the whole thing. People – Aussies especially – love a company that can laugh at itself. That, combined with the fact that they didn’t strongly support or associate themselves with the name when it was announced, will lead people to forgive them – it could almost paint them as victims, having to live with the poor judgment of that dork who won that competition, but making the best of it.

Updates to come when I’m proven right. (If I’m wrong I’ll probably stay quiet.)


2 Comments so far

  1. David Morgan-Mar September 30th, 2009 11:17 am

    Your thesis intrigues me. If correct – and I’m not about to shoot it down in flames for the sheer madness unlikelihood of it – it will indeed be a piece of marketing genius unrivalled since Alexander convinced people he was pretty great. My greatest concern is that marketing people can’t possibly be that clever, or else we’re all screwed as a discerning consumer society. :-)

Leave a reply