There was a nice little media innovation for Listerine the other day on Sunday Times. Without any unwieldy cut out, it managed to attract one’s attention, mainly because it had an idea.
The reveal ad was about 100% oral protection, thus linking the ‘incomplete’ idea of the front page. The TVC brings out the same idea differently. So far so good. But looking at the brand’s activity on Facebook and Twitter once can’t help feeling that they exist purely so that someone can tick off a check list. The ‘Dare’ section on Facebook makes for amusing reading: ‘Use Listrine to give your teeth some breath, ‘i am unable to open the contest page‘ and many more (things people write about mouthwash to win a Blackberry!). And comments from profiles which look like this, makes you wonder if its the ‘let’s buy Likes’ syndrome at work.
The Twitter feed on the other hand, reminds you of a Social Media Ghost Town. Seriously, why would anyone tweet about tooth decay or get into a conversation about plaque? Or interested in telling the world if Freshburst or Coolmint is their favourite Listerine flavour? With 8 followers and 21 tweets its simply a waste of internet real estate. Its not as if the creators of the campaign would not have anticipated low levels of activity on the Twitter page. What was a competent idea in print & TV has no scope for presence on Twitter. Why even have it then as part of the campaign?
Incidentally, the press ad promotes both the Facebook and Twitter pages but not the website. The website acts as an information source and bit of time pass (with a game). It’s unlikely one would visit the site more than once. All this makes you wonder: does your brand really need social media?
[On my blog] Listerine: shall we tweet about bad breath or plaque? http://www.lbhat.com/online/listerine-sh...
@bhatnaturally Cheers for the article! Got some interesting feedback from it. #blog