This might be significant...

Dove's 2006 Super Bowl spot generated almost 500 million impressions for Oprah even devoted an entire episode to the ad and the "Campaign for Real Beauty".

Then Unilver seeded one commercial on YouTube earlier this month.

Which one do you think worked better?

According to Alexa, the traffic spike Unilever enjoyed from one YouTube video going viral is OVER TRIPLE what Dove garnered from its Super Bowl spot.

Anyone wanna do the cost analysis on $3.75 million vs. free?

posted by Mack Collier @ 11:32 PM,


At 4:34 AM, Blogger Chris Brown said...

Wow. Great post. That amount of media money should could fund a lot of viral video production!!

I think part of the magic of this is the medium.

I've seen a Dove commercial like this a couple of times on TV, but it's much more effective up close (18" from the screen) than across the room on the TV. I just don't pay enough attention to the TV screen.

What a great message too...

At 11:06 AM, Blogger Tim Jackson- Masi Guy said...

That is the kind of math I like to do- no calculators or slide rules needed (not that I can operate either).

At 2:02 PM, Anonymous Lewis Green said...


Thank you. For us marketers, we need to pay attention to this.

At 7:00 PM, Anonymous CK said...

Thanks for this. Significant indeed.

It's the era of "show don't tell" (maybe it was always the era of show--we were just so used to telling).

Another piece of math that would be harder to gauge is all the WOM, not sure how to calculate the "value" of impressions but Dove's brand power has certainly skyrocketed.

At 2:58 AM, Blogger Mack Collier said...

"Another piece of math that would be harder to gauge is all the WOM, not sure how to calculate the "value" of impressions but Dove's brand power has certainly skyrocketed."

Another way to look at it is that since Dove's traffic effectively tripled the gain from the SB spot, and since Dove paid roughly $3.75 million for their SB spot, that means that one video being uploaded to YouTube has garnered Dove a traffic spike that would have cost them over $10 million.

At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Lani Voivod said...

Microsoft, Google, Starbucks, Nike, Apple, Coke, Marlboro, Verizon, and every other Big Papa brand out there -- get out of the way.

You Tube is here.

They get it, they're servin' it up, and they're giving the people what they want:

...all in bite-sized chunks.

And for FREE. (!!!)

Thanks for the clarity wallop, Mack! That's my holiest vision of "New Math." :)

At 10:18 PM, Blogger Mack Collier said...

I'm sure every Super Bowl commercial created for the next game will come with the marketing directive to 'make it go viral!' ;)

At 10:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you thought about something Kelly said on

""No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted."

What a great point of view. It should make people who support artificial images of sex-obsessed fashion models ashamed. Like those jerks who make the Axe and Lynx ads. You know the ones where sexy women become the love slaves of Axe men. Dove's "Self Esteem Fund" ought to go after them.

There's just one problem: The same company, Unilever, makes both campaigns. That’s right, the people behind these Dove ads are actually promoting the same exploitive images of women they are criticizing. Does this make you feel manipulated? It should.

It’s nice to see positive imagery in advertising, but it’s a lot nicer when it’s authentic, not just a cynical corporate trick to sell soap.

Unilever, if you’re listening, what’s it going to be? Threat women like real people, or sex slaves? Pick one.

(See the Axe spots:"


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home