The New User

Advertising can be broken down into a straightforward triangular model; advertisers create a message, the media communicates it through advertisements and the consumer interprets the meaning of it. Putting this simple model into context using traditional methods of print, radio and television advertising, programmers and publishers typically have a simplistic relationship with advertisers – advertisers pay for a spot and provide the appropriate content, which is then published or aired. Both parties mutually benefit from the transaction; the company advertising has its message conveyed exactly when, where and how it desires, while the medium communicating the message is generating revenue.

The consumer is the third-party involved in this triangular-model. Within traditional media, the consumer has almost no direct say in the advertising process. The content is delivered, which the consumer can either pay attention to and retain, or ignore it.

However, in the past decade, this simplistic triangular-relationship has been complicated by the rapidly growing popularity of the Internet. The dynamic capabilities of the Internet give it a unique edge no other media can parallel. Instead of simply serving as a medium for advertisers to display their static advertisements, the Internet allows advertisers to create an interactive environment. This means consumers are no longer just viewers of advertisement content, but rather, active participants.

Even more recently, technological advances have taken the interactivity of Internet advertising to a new level. Consumers are no longer standing on the sidelines of the development process in advertising; instead, they are in the middle of the action, and in many cases, creating their own content. The advertising industry’s focus is shifting from creating ads that merely reach the consumers, to creating ads in tandem with consumers.

Currently, the advertising industry is opening the gate to a whole new world of advertising possibilities. This site explores the constantly increasing capabilities and freedoms consumers have on the Internet and its effects on the advertising industry. From simply being able to voice their opinions about products and services, to creating and publishing their own advertising content, the Internet is rapidly creating a new user-centric method of advertising.

Since the first newspaper ad was recorded to have been published in the Boston Newsletter in 1704 seeking a buyer for an Oyster Bay, Long Island estate, both the style of advertisements and the media used to communicate ads to the public have greatly evolved (http://adage.com/century/timeline/index.html). Historically, as the adoption rate of a particular medium in American’s homes increases, so does the amount of money spent on advertising in that medium. A good example of this is the correlation between the adoption rates of radio and television among Americans and the amount of money spent on advertisements placed in them. Additionally, as technological breakthroughs in communication have occurred, new advertising media has simultaneously developed (Bruner, R., p. 2, 2005).

Similarly, as the adoption rate of the Internet among Americans is rapidly increasing, so is the proportion of dollars advertisers are allocating to the medium. In just 20 years, the Internet has found its way into more than 50 percent of American’s homes, making it the medium with the quickest adoption rate to date. The development of the Web browser in 1994, which made the Internet easily accessible to a mass audience, made the Internet a new option for advertisers (Bruner, R., p. 2, 2005).

The first online advertisement that was not just a static newspaper ad placed online appeared as a banner ad from AT&T on HotWired.com in October 1994 (Bruner, R., p.3, 2005).

Since the introduction of banner ads just over a decade ago, online advertising, which was once seen as an unnecessary and sometimes risky advertising medium for a company, has grown to become an essential component of the media mix for most businesses.

However, it is important to note the rapid growth of online advertising cannot solely be attributed to the mass adoption rate of the Internet. The online advertisement has quickly evolved from being another form of print collateral to an interactive way of directly communicating with customers, making the Internet an appealing medium for advertisers. “The Internet isn’t a static medium of banner ads. It’s a dynamic medium capable of text, pictures, audio, video and interaction that 10 years from now may have people looking back at the 1990s as ‘the good old days’ when media companies thought the Internet was about text, graphics and searchable classifieds,” (Bruner, R., p.3, 2005).

After the dot com crash in 2000, the online advertising industry, like most other Internet businesses, suffered. However, in an effort to restore faith in online advertising, advertisers began experimenting with the interactive capabilities of the Internet. The term “rich media,” was coined as a way to describe the enhanced interactive ways of reaching consumers through online ads (Bruner, R., p.5, 2005). Below are some of the capabilities of rich media, and why they are important to advertisers:

Video – allows companies to show users interacting with products as well as recycling TV spots online
Audio – serves as a source for two-way communication for users and advertisers
Floating and expanding banner ads – easily grabs the consumer’s attention

Even more recently, rich media features have been enhanced by the technologies associated with Web 2.0. The term Web 2.0, is used to describe the new generation of social or interactive Web that allows advertisers to communicate with consumers on a very personal level (Davis, p.1, 2006). As a result of Web 2.0 technologies, a new era of both the Internet and advertising is emerging. Interactive features are granting more control over advertising content to users. Some of the interactive features beginning to surface today include (Bruner, R., p.5, 2005):

Below are some of the latest statistics from Technorati about user-generated content, in particular blogs.

This chart shows the amount of posts made to blogs on a daily basis from August 2004 to September 2006.

The Graph below represents the global impact user-generated content is having by showing the variety of languages blogs are writen in.

The next two charts illustrate the increasing credibility and recognition blogs that are not already integrated with mainsteam media outlets are receiving.

As a result of the freedom and interactive capabilities of the Internet, for the first time, advertisers are no longer in the driver’s seat when it comes to creating advertising content. Instead, consumers are now behind the wheel for a large portion of online content, which means they are no longer sitting in the backseat letting advertisers tell them what to do. Today, there are many ways users are developing and publishing content on the Web, placing themselves in the middle of the advertisement development process.

Consumer-generated media is a concept that first came to light during the dot com era by an Internet-based company, ShareYourWorld, Inc., who connected people that created digital media with those interested in licensing it. Today, the term is used to describe an Internet-based word-of-mouth phenomenon encompassing opinions, experiences, advice and commentary generated by consumers about specific products, services, companies and brands. Consumer-generated media can include text, images, photos, videos, podcasts and other Web 2.0 media technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer-generated_media

User-generated content is the term used to describe various content produced by end-users rather than by more traditional methods such as media producers, licensed broadcasters and production companies. Some of the ways user-generated content can be expressed include digital videos, blogs, podcasts, mobile phone photography and wikis. According to Wikipedia, “The term came into the mainstream during 2005 in new media content production circles. It reflects the expansion of media production through new technologies that are accessible and affordable to the general public,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content).

Today, the term user-generated content is frequently used in place of “consumer-generated media” for several reasons. First, many critics do not agree that the word “media” should be used because people are not actually creating the media, but rather the content that is being used in the media. The media is the platform available for the user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer-generated_media).

Also, the term “user” has been adopted because of a controversy surrounding who develops the content in open-source forums where anyone has the ability to contribute. In particular, forums that do not require users to provide their identity or credentials are under the most scrutiny. Some content on these sites, commonly referred to as engineered content, is either created by established experts or professionals who may officially be part of a development team, or the content is expert-edited by subject-matter authorities; therefore, it does not really express the views of the “consumer” (http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200603/ij_03_07_06a.html). Consequently, the term “user” is said to more accurately describe the content’s developer than the term “consumer.” Likewise, use of the term “user” has been under much scrutiny lately, which is discussed in the “user" vs. “publisher” section.

Whenever there is a shift in the way an industry operates, there will always be a lot of resistance to change expressed. This is true mainly because when change occurs, there is always an associated risk involved that some people are not be willing to take. It is always harder for the supporters of change, even if they are the majority, to persuade those who do not wish to disturb the status quo. Consequently, in order to justify why change is necessary in an industry, one must recognize all of the disadvantages, problems and controversies that may arise as changes occur. Please click on the links below for brief overviews of the common debates and possible solutions for issues involving user-generated content.

As discussed in The Convergence section, there is a difference between user-generated content and engineered content that is often blurred on Web sites. As Chin described in his post, “If...engineered content is like the 60 minutes news show, where stories are worked on by veteran reporters and producers then user-generated content is a call-in program where viewers themselves provide much of the content – in the form of opinions and questions,” ( p. 2, 2006). By definition, engineered content is any information posted that is either generated by an “established knowledge expert,” or user-generated content that is edited by subject-matter authorities before it is posted (Chin, P., p. 1-2, 2006). In this section the debate over whether sites providing engineered content should let viewers know that it is not purely user-generated is discussed. (For discussion of the debate on whether sites should in fact require editing of content please see the “Credibility and Editing of Content” section).

In general, by requiring users to either disclose their identity or credentials, or by providing a disclaimer on the Web site stating that not all user-generated content is posted verbatim, may be a possible way to end the debate over identifying engineered content. However, the discussion surrounding identifying engineered content is more in-depth then simply requiring disclosure or posting disclaimers on Web sites that edit content. Many sites may purposely avoid requiring disclosure because they believe more people will participate if they do not have to disclose their identity, meaning a broader knowledge-base can be tapped into (Chin, P., p.2, 2006). Additionally, sites that do distinguish between purely user-generated content and engineered content may be creating an unintentional “credibility line.” This is risky because the site may be accidentally discouraging participation by “non-expert” sources that may have valuable information to post.

Perhaps one of the biggest debates surrounding user-generated content today is the source it is coming from. Stemming from the engineered content debate is the issue of credibility of user-generated content. “Since any user can create user-generated content, via multiple points of entry, it’s more difficult to control the quality and relevance of the content being input,” (Chin, P., p. 2, 2006).

According to Chin, in order to maintain a site’s credibility, there are three ways user-generated content can be moderated:

Pre-Production Moderation- Content is submitted by users and is not made public until it is reviewed and verified by knowledge experts
Post-Production Moderation- Content is submitted by users and made public immediately, it is reviewed by knowledge experts while it is live
Peer-Based Moderations-Content is submitted by users and is usually moderated by other users using integrity-rating scales or a content-error reporting systems (Chin, P. p. 2, 2006)

Based on the three methods of moderation listed above, if a Web site chooses to regulate its content, it can implement either a rigid system that involves a third-party expert or a lenient user-based system for checking the credibility of content. “In order to find a happy middle ground when using user-generated content, and not to appear overly controlling, a formal set of content posting guidelines should be agreed upon by both the intranet owners and users,” (Chin, P., p.3, 2006).

There are two different aspects to take into considerations when discussing intellectual property rights and copyright management. First, who really owns user-generated content? Second, how do sites hosting user-generated content ensure they are not publishing plagiarized materials that could damage their reputations?

Many people have already taken the plunge into the world of producing user-generated content, meaning the initial trial-period of the medium is over. For example, according to Technorati, as of March 16, 2007 there were over 71.5 million blogs existing on the live portion of the Web (http://technorati.com/about/). As the “new factor” of user-generated content is wearing off, many content producers and hosts are starting to wonder who actually owns the rights to the content produced by millions of users on the Web.
Some people say users own the content because they produced it, while others maintain that Internet service providers (ISPs) transmit the content, therefore, they own it (“Taking the Copyright Initiative,” p. 1, 2007).

As user-generated content is rapidly transmitted across the Internet, it is necessary to reach an agreement as to who owns the materials as soon as possible. This is necessary because user-generated content is being used by people in locations where it was not originally published online. In his blog, Marc Brownstein of Advertising Age questions the possible implications of a situation such as the one previously described. “What happens when Sally in Des Moines claims that the Doritos commercial on the Super Bowl is HER idea, while Bob in Seattle is the lucky one who got credit and big bucks for it?” (http://adage.com/smallagency/article?article_id=113240).

Oftentimes, users may not recognize, or do not care, if their content is regenerated elsewhere; however, it increasing becomes an issue as soon as users see their content being reproduced by another individual or company for revenue-generating purposes (http://adage.com/smallagency/article?article_id=113240). At this point, many users may wish to receive a piece of the profit, yet they are often unable to do so because they cannot actually prove they own the content. According to an article published on EContent, it’s important for content producers to take the initiative to secure rights management into their content. “As user-generated content becomes a more burgeoning enterprise for content producers, the focus will shift from content producers just putting content out there to putting content out there and making sure it’s secure,” (“Taking the Copyright Initiative,” p. 1, 2007).

The second half of the copyright debate deals with protecting Web sites hosting user-generated content. A core part of the debate stems from the following scenario; if a Web site is hosting a forum with very little moderation of the user-generated content and a user plagiarizes a publication, who is at fault? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 provides one possible answer to this question. A section within the act provides protection to ISPs saying they are not liable for copyright infringement because they simply transmit the information over the Internet. This law may also apply to companies such as Google who are acting as ISPs for users by simply providing an outlet for them to publish their materials (“Taking the Copyright Initiative,” p. 1, 2007).

As an additional means of protection, Google is reaching out to major copyright owners to negotiate licensing deals as well as discussing integrating software into YouTube that filters out pirated content. (“Taking the Copyright Initiative,” p. 2, 2007). In the long-run, this proactive approach could not only save Google millions of dollars by avoiding potential lawsuits, but it could also generate millions of dollars in revenue as deals with major media distribution companies could make YouTube the World’s largest online video distribution source (http://media.seekingalpha.com/article/29460).

User-generated content can present an interesting cost-benefit analysis for companies. For example, many companies today are issuing contests asking for user-generated content to be used in advertisements. They may receive thousands of entries, which is a huge amount of insight directly from their users; however, is this abundance of information worth the time it will take to sift through it? “Imagine the time it will take to sort through the ideas to get to ones that are in good taste, on strategy, affordable to produce, and relevant. Who's paying for that time? Cost-sensitive clients? Or their already-over-worked/under-paid agencies?” (http://adage.com/smallagency/article?article_id=113240).

“Now that blogging, YouTube and MySpace have made it possible for anyone to become a reporter, producer or social advisor, what used to be a frightening possibility for advertisers and marketers has become a startling reality,” (Dickey, J. and Sullivan, J., p. 1, 2007). What Dickey and Sullivan are referring to is that for the first time, control of advertising content and production has shifted from the hands of the advertiser to the hands of the consumer, or what can be referred to as a “user-centric” method of advertising.

Since blogs took-off in 2003, the amount of user-generated content on the Internet has soared; today approximately 1.3 million new blog posts are produced each day note: this figure simply includes posts that are text-based, and not user-generated content that is solely pictorial or video content (http://technorati.com/about/). With this immense amount of user-generated content readily available on the Internet, advertisers have two choices. Their first option is to deny the importance of the new medium, refuse to relinquish control of generating advertising content and continue trying to reach customers through traditional methods. On the other hand, they can accept the new medium, embrace user-generated content and utilize it to better reach their target markets (Dickey, J. and Sullivan, J., p. 1, 2007).

The following sections discuss several reasons why advertisers benefit from recognizing user-generated content’s value and utilizing it.

As new technologies emerge and are rapidly being adopted by the innovative members of younger generations (“Gen Xers” and “Gen Yers”) it is becoming apparent that a parallel shift in advertising methods is also necessary. “Using traditional media to reach today’s new decision-makers is as appropriate as thinking one’s dusted leisure suit still has some wear in it,” (Dickey, J. and Sullivan, J., p. 1, 2007).

According to a random survey conducted of 10,000 blogs by Perseus in April 2005, more than 94 percent of all bloggers are under the age of 30 (http://www.perseus.com/blogsurvey/geyser.html). This number enforces the importance of utilizing user-generated sites to reach younger consumers, as they are the pioneers of the emerging online mediums today. “The Internet and associated applications are dominant media sources in their lives. They seek out new and improved media that have different consumption patterns than other groups. In order to reach, connect and engage these emerging decision-makers, marketers must first embrace them,” (Dickey, J. and Sullivan, J., p. 2, 2007).

While many people are just beginning to latch onto the technologies and interactive capabilities associated with “Web 2.0,” advertisers need to remain one step ahead and prepare the industry for “Web 3.0.” Susan Wu of Charles River Ventures spoke at the 2007 South by Southwest Interactive Media Conference regarding “Web 3.0” in a presentation she titled “Web 2.0 to Web 3D.” She discussed the future of the Internet not in terms of the emerging technologies, but rather, how consumer’s relationships with the Internet are changing. Elaborating on the topic, Wu said:

Pre-Web Information Sharing

Web 1.0

Web 2.0: Interaction

Web 3.0: Immersion

Wu’s description of the evolution of the Internet is a development that is important for advertisers to understand. Since the Web has already evolved from a static to an interactive environment, and user-generated content is becoming even more popular, it should be obvious that the development of the Web will not stop here.

As Wu suggests, the next step for users is to want a more emotional and engaging experience, taking user-generated content to the next level. For example, consumers who create avatars online and use 3D Internet forums such as Second Life are already immersing themselves into the Internet. If advertisers can develop a way to utilize the content created by avatars in these environments, an entirely new level of advertiser-to-user communication could emerge.

In the mid-1990s, user-generated content became popular as millions of Americans began creating personal online journals. At first, online journals served as a way for people to have a voice on the Internet. Typically users would write about their lives, much like they would have in a paper diary. However, for the first time they were writing their thoughts – which could be anything, ranging from comments about their favorite television show to a bad experience they had with a product – in a publicly accessible forum. Consequently, for the first time other people, including advertisers were now able to access true unscripted consumer insights without provoking the information through market research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog).

Besides possibly saving money on market research there are additional pieces of information advertisers can obtain by paying attention to user-generated content. First, by tracking and analyzing user-generated content, particularly content containing images or videos of a particular product, advertisers are presented with a unique situation – they can see how users interact with the product in a natural environment (Crupi, A. p. 2, 2007). As a result of observing unscripted and natural customer-product interaction, advertisers can create advertisements that “speak” more directly to the consumer.

Simply monitoring what consumers are saying about a brand is not the only way user-generated content can be utilized. Advertisers can capitalize on the actual act of users generating content. Daniel Davenport, director of emerging media at THINK Interactive, Inc, an interactive advertising agency based in Atlanta, says a technique their agency uses is to actually create sites for clients that encourage user-generated content. They have created sites designed to encourage users to provide feedback, post photos or upload videos about products and services (personal phone interview on March 16, 2007.

One example of this tactic can be seen in the agency’s work for Alltell Wireless’ youth campaign.THINK developed a part of the site titled “Socialize,” where users are encouraged to post pictures they have taken using their mobile phones. The site also allows users to choose a photo, write a caption and send it directly from the site to another Alltell Wireless user. “Now marketers can have ready access to many more opinions then they would have had previously,” says Davenport (personal phone interview on March 16, 2007).

Based on the insights gained from monitoring user-generated content, which is discussed in the Monitoring Consumer Insights section, advertisers can take it to the next level by responding to it. However, when attempting to utilize this technique, it is important that advertisers do not try to do so in a deceptive or intrusive manor.

One technique used by many companies today is to employ people to monitor blogs for content about their products and services. This technique can play a crucial role in a product’s brand management. As defined on Wikipedia, brand management, “seeks to increase the product's perceived value to the customer and thereby increase brand franchise and brand equity” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_management). While monitoring content is normal and not considered to be a deceptive practice, what the company does next with the information they obtain from doing this is a source for controversy. Today, a common practice by some large companies is to post responses to both negative and positive content about their products and services on blogs. Oftentimes, this is done anonymously.

According to an article titled, “As Blogging Grows, So Do Its Do’s and Don’ts,” this is a practice companies should not engage in:

DON'T employ consumer bloggers to say positive things about your company's products or services without ensuring that they disclose their affiliations with the company. Endorsements and testimonials by word of mouth have always been a popular form of marketing, but the blogging world has made them even more so, thereby making content that crosses the line an attractive target for regulators (http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1171620175568).

Another way advertisers can use insights gained by monitoring user-generated content is to create specifically-targeted messages. This type of direct and/or interactive marketing can help create a personalized experience that connects the user with the product or service. An example of this can be seen in the work THINK Interactive produced for Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. The agency created a series of behaviorally-targeted banners and search advertising to generate leads to the school’s Web site. Based on the information they gathered from the ads, the agency then sent customized HTML e-mails to consumers in order to create an immersive experience (http://www.thinkinc.com/awards/emory/).

One final way advertisers can utilize user-generated content is to not only analyze it, but to make adjustments to the products, services and advertisements to meet the needs of the consumer. According to a blog post by Jackie Peters, chief creative officer of multi-media at Heavybag Media, user-generated content is important because it:

Provides the brand with even more input to improve or constantly update the brand to change along with the consumer. The brand can continue to give the consumer what they want because the consumer is communicating exactly what he or she wants and expects. As the open communication increases with the audience, a brand immersion is formed. Immersing a target audience in a customer’s messages assumes consumer activity on a regular basis and with personal interest, need, or want fulfilled….The result of interactive marketing is that the consumer has chosen to carry a message. The audience is now a reflection of the brand. It is the message personified. http://blog.heavybagmedia.com/?p=42.

With stories of corrupt business practices and unethical tactics in the corporate world constantly emerging, it’s no surprise that people generally will trust other people before they trust what a business has to say. According to the chart below from Nielsen BuzzMetrics, consumers do in fact trust other consumer’s opinions the most.

This poses a problem for huge media conglomerates such as Time Warner, Newscorp and Viacom who like the sense of control they have through “packaged goods media.” This phrase refers to the traditional method of producing content and distributing it through selected media, such as print, radio, TV and even the Internet. This method is particularly important for large companies since they often own the distribution channels they use to display their advertising content in, giving their company total control over the advertising process (Batella, J. p.3, 2006).

However, the traditional method practiced by these large companies is being challenged by user-generated content, otherwise known in this instance as “conversational media,” which is something media conglomerates do not have control over. This type of media poses a huge threat to traditional “packaged-goods media” for several reasons (Batella, J. p.3, 2006). First and foremost, one study conducted by Forrester Research and Intelliseek has shown that two of the top four most trusted sources for product information among consumers are “recommendations from other consumers” and “consumer opinions posted online,” (http://www.nielsenbuzzmetrics.com/cgm.asp).

Second, since there is a great amount of user-generated content available online today, when using search engines to find information many of the top results returned typically contain user-generated content. Oftentimes, consumers are using search engines to specifically find this type of content, meaning “marketers and advertisers no longer ‘control’ the message or the medium” (http://www.nielsenbuzzmetrics.com/cgm.asp).

In order to prevent extinction as the consumption of new media rises, traditional media must utilize new media techniques. Rather then shun the Internet for its interactive capabilities, there are several ways the television industry can use it to revive what many affectionately refer to as the “dying 30-second spot” (Rust, R. T., and Oliver, R. W, P.3, 1994). First, by encouraging users to submit ideas for television advertisements, or even to create their own 30-second ad slots online, advertisers are establishing a connection between Internet users and television viewing.

Additionally, in a World where people tend to trust what other people say over what a company says, user-generated advertisements may prove to be rather useful. If people realize television advertisements are user-generated, and that the Internet is not the only place they can view content generated by other users, they may tend to trust television more, and not view it as a source of paid propaganda. “‘I’m not trying to suggest it replaces the agency-designed 30second spot,’ said Reggie Bradford, CEO of ViTrue, an Atlanta company that provides user-generate ad platforms. ‘It enhances it. Time will tell whether [user]-generated advertising is bigger than agency generated,” (http://www.adweek.com/aw/iq_interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003122828

The number of outlets encouraging and supporting user-generated content is growing daily, making it clear that this method of open source communication is not just a fad. Power is in fact shifting away from advertisers to consumers, and as discussed in the Why Should Advertisers Care about User-Generated Content section, advertisers need to not only embrace the changes in the industry, but capitalize on them. According to Davenport, “User generated content is not changing the industry, it has changed the industry. It will not be important someday, it is important now,” (Phone Interview).

Below are some examples of how companies have succeeded, failed and learned from their mistakes when trying to utilize user-generated content in their advertising.

A great example of how utilizing user-generated content for advertising workied can be seen by looking at the contests created by companies such as PepsiCo Inc.’s Doritos, General Motor Corp.’s Chevrolet and the National Football League for the 2007 Super Bowl. All three companies designed contests inviting consumers to either generate ideas, or in the case of Doritos actual ads, where the winner received not just bragging rights because they created a Super Bowl ad, but also some type of compensation for their work (Steinberg, B. p. 1, 2007).

First, let’s examine why a company would want to risk $2.6 million for a 30-second Super Bowl spot on an advertisement created by an amateur. There are several reasons why a company would be willing to invest that much money into a new and potentially risky idea including:

With the three objectives listed above in mind, let’s take a look at the Super Bowl contests more closely, particularly the Doritos campaign. “Of the three, [Doritos, Chevy and the NFL] Doritos took the most hands-off approach, perhaps in keeping with its younger image,” (Steinberg, B. p. 2, 2007). The Doritos campaign was unique in that it required users to create and submit a complete television advertisement. According to Ann Mukherjee, vice president of marketing for Pepsi’s Frito-Lay snack division, “Doritos was prepared to consider anything…. Part of the success of the idea is… the genuineness of letting people express themselves,” (Steinberg, B. p. 2, 2007). Based on this information, it is clear Doritos set out seeking a way to develop an ad that connected with its users, particularly the younger generations its product targets, and their tool for doing so was going to be user-generated content.

While the advertisement itself does exactly what an ad is supposed to – advertise the product – perhaps the most compelling part of this user-generated ad is the buzz surrounding the actual ad and the process of its creation. Before the ad was even created, Doritos was generating peaking interest among consumers and getting its name in the media with information about the contest.

Similarly, a countless number of articles and blog posts about user-generated ads – what can be referred to as “buzz” – surfaced within days after the Super Bowl. Every single one at least mentioned the ad above, typically referring to it as “The Doritos Super Bowl Ad.” This type of press is extremely important for Doritos because according to a report from McKinsey Reports on buzzmarketing.com, “54 percent of sales are affected by buzz or lack thereof,” http://www.buzzmarketing.com/philosophy.php. Above all, by examining both user-generated content and articles about Super Bowl advertisements, it is clear that Doritos succeeded in achieving the third objective of user-generated content by creating “buzz beyond their actual advertisement,” with their 2007 Super Bowl ad.

While user-generated content can be an excellent way for companies and brands to connect with consumers, it may not always be the best way to do so. In 2006, in conjunction with the TV show The Apprentice, GM launched an online contest asking users to create an ad for the Chevy Tahoe. The contest gave users an archive of audio and video clips to use as background for the ad, but asked users to insert their own original text over the video. In just one weekend, the contest backfired for GM, resulting in the creation of thousands of negative ads about the Tahoe. In particular, its negative effects on the environment were highlighted (http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-6057143.html).

Within hours of being posted, the video clips began rapidly circulating the Internet. Cnet News posted a montage of some of what its editors considered to be the “best,” (or from GMs perspective the worst) videos created during the contests short stint.

Please click on the link below to view some of the user-generated GM advertisements.

GM did not immediately pull the advertisements that were created with negative content. A spokeswoman for GM, Melisa Tezanos, said the company “Anticipated that there would be critical submissions. You do turn over your brand to the public, and we knew that we were going to get some bad with the good" (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/business/media/04adco.html?ex=1301803200&en=280e20c8ba110565&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt).

The Bad Turned Good

An article in Wired magazine described GM’s spring 2006 Tahoe campaign as follows, “In just four weeks…on its own Web site, the Tahoe now stood accused of everything but running down the Pillsbury Doughboy,” (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.12/tahoe.html). Learning from their mistakes in 2006, GM launched another contest asking users to submit ideas, rather than actual advertisements, that used the tagline “Chevy, An American Revolution.” This time around Chevy only opened its contest to college students. The students were required to prepare a professional brief that was judged by Chevy executives in conjunction with their ad agency, Interpublic Group. Preliminary content was never made public (Steinber, B. p.2 2007).

Overall, it is safe to say that user-generated content is currently heavily impacting the advertising industry. It is not just the latest consumer fad or the newest buzz technique being used by advertisers. The dynamic nature of the Internet is pioneering perhaps one of the biggest industry shifts in the history of advertising.

While there are several issues and debates currently surrounding user-generated content, many companies are willing to take a risk and embrace the concept. The consumer insights, both negative and positive, received from utilizing and analyzing user-generated content can prove to be invaluable for a company or brand.