Bomb Scares Aren’t Usually a Good Thing

BRANDWEEK revisited the infamous Boston bomb hoax today to see what impact if any it had on the guerrilla marketing industry. The consensus among practitioners like Interference, Geek Factory and Renegade is that demand for non-traditional programs is enjoying explosive (pardon the pun) growth. Why? Many marketers were exposed to the potential impact of guerrilla marketing by the bomb hoax and realized that the rewards could outweigh the risks.

What’s difficult here is that I could be thanking Sam Ewen, the CEO of Interference (the agency behind the bomb hoax), for going over the line (again) and drawing so much attention to non-traditional marketing. His efforts have resulted in more business for Renegade and allowed us to stake a claim as “good” guerrillas in contrast to his clandestine clan of boundary breakers. For the record, Sam is really good at what he does (I don’t know any one who is better) and the clients that work with him know that he will deliver the attention they are seeking. We simply differ on the definition of what is “good” for a brand and how far our respective firms will go to cut through…

For example, nothing Renegade has ever done gained the attention of the US Senate. The bomb hoax did just that according to Brandweek:

Under the proposed Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007, the government will be able to sue parties involved in stunts mistaken for terrorism. Introduced in the Senate, the bill would add new clauses to the federal criminal code that would make it less appealing to waste government resources. The amendments include extending the prohibitions on spreading false information, increasing maximum prison terms and letting local and federal governments sue to reimburse expenses.

Despite the short-term gains, the bomb hoax was not a good thing for our industry. It pissed off an entire city resulting in the Senate’s legislative action. It heightened fears among big clients that “guerrilla” is too risky to which the industry responded by simply calling it something different like ambient, experiential or street marketing (a bomb by any other name…)  It forced additionally scrutiny of “ambient marketing” program by lawyers and senior client executives.  So, thanks for the business Sam but I still think this is Marketing for Bad for our industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *