Mark Ritson: Boaty McBoatface proves the public would rather humiliate your brand than engage with it
The Natural Environment Research Council’s competition to name its new boat is the latest in a cavalcade of crowdsourcing disasters, demonstrating that consumers are a bunch of brand-haters.
By Mark Ritson
Earlier this year the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) was about to name its new £200m polar research ship. Traditionally, the naming of any new product – especially a ship – is a serious matter. Shortlists are drawn, historians consulted and executives brought in to ultimately make a big hairy decision.
But today, in this exciting digital era, the process is very different. Now we can communicate with the public using social media, we can crowdsource naming ideas and then tabulate the popularity of the suggested product names on our corporate website. Naming has become more than just part of new product development – these days it’s also a brilliant way to generate brand awareness, content and engagement.
I’m pretty certain that NERC has never been more top-of-mind than this exact moment. As you probably already know, a few days into the 30-day crowdsourcing contest to name the new ship a gentleman by the name of James Hand had an idea. He came up with the name Boaty McBoatface.
Within hours the suggestion had raced to the top of the online poll being maintained by NERC on their website. In fact, the site went down several times with the immense traffic that the name generated. When the poll officially closed on Saturday evening Boaty McBoatface had generated 124,109 votes – almost four times that of the next most popular suggestion.
It looks like NERC will need that executive decision after all. The organisation now faces the ultimate brand strategy conundrum and, this time, crowdsourcing is not going to provide the answer. Either they reject Boaty McBoatface and face an ensuing tidal wave of negative PR and consumer disappointment, or they go with the winning name and launch their new flagship, grim-faced, into half a century of hilarity and piss-taking.
In the happy, completely detached world of digital marketing there is a common fallacy that the sarcastic, brand-hating bastards that populate the planet are actually an army of jovial optimists who simply cannot wait to engage with your organisation on social media. Unless you grasp the dystopian nature of consumer culture it is possible to entirely miss the inherent dangers of crowdsourcing product names: the semi-official term for it is ‘crowdslapping’ and its every bit as painful as it sounds. What’s more, it’s a pain that organisation after organisation keeps experiencing.
Who can forget the story of the ambitious marketers at the city of Austin, Texas who crowdsourced a new name for their solid waste facility in order to better communicate what the state-owned garbage processing department did for local people. The winning name for the facility, The Fred Durst Society of the Humanities and Arts, was rejected by local government officials despite its endorsement from Durst, the front man from 1990s band Limp Bizkit.
It was a similar story for soft drink Mountain Dew whose owners staged a crowdsourcing contest in 2012 to name the latest apple-infused version of the beverage. Within days the brand had to take down the Dub the Dew website because the leading vote winner, Hitler Did Nothing Wrong, was seen by some executives as perhaps a little off-brand.
When Greenpeace tagged a pod of humpbacks migrating to the South Pacific in 2007, the NGO also held a crowdsourcing contest to name one of the whales. Despite the other whales in the pod possessing suitably elegant names like Aiko and Aurora, when the internet discovered one of the options was Mister Splashy Pants you can imagine what happened next. With 78% of the vote, Greenpeace were forced to christen the unfortunate mammal with the new name opening up the delightful possibility that, in the not so distant future, Mister Splashy Pants will be swimming alongside Boaty McBoatface somewhere off eastern Antarctica.
One might assume from this cavalcade of branding disasters that one solution is to create a shortlist of options and only then crowdsource a winner. Not true, as the French hosts of the upcoming Euro 2016 football tournament discovered earlier this year. Having created a charming teenage mascot for the event they then offered the world three different name options to choose from. The astonishing popularity of the ultimate winner, Super Victor, might possibly have something to with the fact that it is also the name of one of the world’s most popular (and intimidating) sex toys.
If you are planning on ordering a Super Victor mascot on Amazon as a prelude to the big game this summer, especially the 10 inch version, can I strongly recommend that you double-check what’s in your cart before you press ‘pay’.
Two similar disasters worth enjoying:
When David Bowie announced that, on one final tour, he would sing for one last time the most popular of his old songs. He rescinded the offer after the outright winner was The Laughing Gnome.
And when Manchester City looked to name a stand in their new ground after a former player. Fans of other clubs ensured that the winning suggestion was to name it after former striker Colin Bell: The Bell End.
Love it! Especially the City one, just goes to show never trust a bunch of strangers to do a job that you get paid for. It normally ends in tears for you and tears of laughter from them.
Brilliant.
So you want to engage consumers, but only if they engage on your terms. Tell me more about how real your brand is.
The perils of asking Joe Public’s opinion existed long before the interweb. Seems we never learn that it’s the idiots that always mobilise on social media not the smart people, who are usually too busy.
Is it your suggestion that NERC’s brand was humiliated, Mark? Pomp and ceremony of yesteryear is clearly in the rear view mirror. I suspect you wrote this with tongue in cheek. Really, how terrible is it to break from the serious tradition ship naming as you described?
As part of its term in service, Boaty McBoatface will be a traveling example of the perils of social engagement and methodology concerns. Your depiction of
this real story is much more enjoyable and engaging than day-to-day etiquette. A departure from tradition with humour isn’t toxic.
I’d suggest that Boaty McBoatface is a triumph! Can’t imagine many column inches for ‘boring but expensive scientific research vessel named after mainly unknown scientific researcher’. But if some kids happen to read on after having a giggle and start to appreciate that polar exploration and research probably isn’t boring at all then it’s job done as far as I’m concerned. And never mind Hitler Did Nothing Wrong, personally, I can’t wait for a nice cold refreshing glass of Gushing Granny…
Could it be that during the working life of this ship that the tradition of stuffy names for ships evolves. Britain can lead the world by naming this research vessel Boaty McBoatface. It will be memorable wherever it goes and is already having far more impact as a direct result of having a memorable name.
I think Boaty McBoatface is a great name, Many, many boats and vessels of the sea have humorous, or pun names. I think it is endearing and who says serious messages can not be delivered with a touch of comedy, just look at Comic Relief. Boaty McBoatface also humanises the vessel and will help the organisation to engage with a wider audience than the scientific community.
As I get older I find myself increasingly starting responses with “is it me but…”
I’m with Nick Harman ( comments below) all the way.
Point of order on the name though the vessel in question is a ship so if I were at NERC I could disqualify “Boaty” on a technical issue, although replacing “Boaty” with “Shippy” gets interesting as well! There are times when we should all do what we get paid for and make decisions rather than spreading the blame or credit around under the veil of social interaction!!
It’s a little OTT to suggest that failing to go through with Boaty’s name would leave NERC facing a “tidal wave of negative PR and consumer disappointment”. To begin with, nobody seriously expects them to use that suggestion and any media coverage they will get when they ultimately pick a name will be (a) neutral to positive and (b) infinitely heavier than any column inches they would have got without the vote. Further, does “consumer” opinion matter to NERC? Which of their “consumers” will be disappointed?
I would also point out that you don’t need to crowd-source to end up with a daft product name. Just ask the folk who came up with Findus Battered Cod Pieces in the 1970s.
What this actually proves is that social media is about capturing people’s imagination. Now it’s up to NERC to turn that fact to their advantage.
Your point is valid but you’ve lead with a bad example. Unlike other debacles, nobody is attacking the “brand” here. Way back when there were fewer than 20,000 votes cast, it was clear that they had been savvy enough to make the vote non-bnding and that the public reaction was just a bit of fun.
Whether by luck or by design, they have gained a huge amount of publicity for a ship I’d never have heard about. As for the “humiliated brand”, I still couldn’t tell you what exploratory body is behind it and I’m sure most people couldn’t either but we’ll all be drawn towards it when they next choose to publicise it.
Some excellent comments on here. I’m just being lazy and agreeing with them.
Boaty McBoatface is possibly one of the biggest WINS for research science EVER. More than ever we need accessible, lovable, interesting and humble science. Imagine the cost of attracting this much attention for the NERC. Imagine creating a campaign that allowed citizens to care and laugh about serious science. Imagine people actually listened to climate change science without doubt and fear. Or vaccinations, or homeopathy, or genetic engineering. This should a be turning point for all serious scientists. Embrace Boaty with both latex gloved hands. And thank the public for caring about science again. Greenpeace were right to name Mr. Splashy Pants for all these reasons and for the anthropomorphic pay-back of a creature doomed to hunting and possible extinction.
Eh? do i feel like we’ve stepped back in time and it’s 1960’s NewYorkDon Draper talking
I don’t believe that NERC has suffered from this exercise. It was clear from the outset that it was a poll for suggestions, and the final poll winner would not be the guaranteed final name chosen. Most people who read about this or participated recognised the fun element that was generated from the suggestions and the irreverent humour it represented, as it generated wave after wave of votes.
I do agree that giving free reign to ‘public participation’ is always fraught with dangers if not managed and responded to appropriately. However, in this instance the prompt and relaxed response from NERC acknowledging the ‘fun’ that the name ‘Boaty’ and others caused highlighted their understanding and acceptance that when you invite participation online and through social media, you have to accommodate the unexpected.
Given the media exposure and the highlighting of the UK investing in researching the polar regions, the oceans, and our environment, I think very few will begrudge NERC if they don’t go with ‘Boaty McBoatface’. However, this whole exercise and NERC’s willingness to respond in good humour has opened the doors to build a highly meaningful dialogue about the environmental issues that shape our world and our individual responsibilities as a school child, a student, parent, professional, campaigner, policymaker, or scientist.
2 points:
1) Almost peed my pants at this “…opening up the delightful possibility that, in the not so distant future, Mister Splashy Pants will be swimming alongside Boaty McBoatface somewhere off eastern Antarctica.”
2) If no one, or the majority, have either never heard of your brand or don’t care about your brand, then any kind of engagement is going to require caveats and barriers to farcical outcomes.
Product namings or anything that’s going to stick with you (potentially) for a while, shouldn’t be left to strangers. If the NERC had only opened up voting to its members (if it is indeed a membership organization)… maybe the outcome would have been more aligned with their brand. #JustSayin
Who cares? Marketing “gurus” deserve what they get, it’s a profession of scum, up there with estate agents, recruitment consultants and the media.
Thanks Steve. Hands down best response to any of my columns. Love your work.
They have nothing to be embarrassed about. And it’s not a ‘branding disaster’. It reflects British eccentricity and could work hugely in their favour. I think you’ve misunderstood this situation.
124,109 votes sounds pretty engaged to me. I’d like to see how many people would actually care about this story or vessel if it was going to be called something serious…
Could it be the case that by embracing this name (and I don’t believe you can say that the impetus behind this name was the same as Mountain Dew’s horror show) they can own any ‘negative’ PR? It might actually endear people to what they actually do – people may have an interest in what happens after the naming because it’s fairly jovial. The way you could spin this would be with a follow up campaign about ‘the adventures’ of Boaty McBoatface on its travels.
What about the possibilities of funding research – globally with the Boaty McBoatface Brand? Kids will buy into it and then gain an interest in science, blimey even TV would commission a series..merchandise etc. NERC need a reality and sense of humour injection, get rid of the snobbery and embrace it. After all aren’t some of the people who voted potentially new patrons and a great source of donations…then again what do I know?
Bit of a storm in a tea cup this one. Just because you crowd source names doesn’t mean you have to use them. You pick one that’s on brand and appropriate. The rest is just social babble and good PR.
It’s interesting that you classify any of these as branding disasters, when every single instance constitutes a wave of publicity for these brands. What marketing firm do you work for again? I want to be sure I give my marketing business to somebody who has a clue.
Here’s a robust defence of Boaty McBoatface:
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2016/04/open-letter-to-national-environment.html
I agree with some of the other comments below – this is a win for NERC – they are not a consumer facing organisation – who of the non-science public had even heard of them before this great piece of FREE publicity? Now people will want to know what Boaty gets up to – if the result = more public engagement with science then job done, well done James Hand and good luck to NERC!
I think you have missed the point on this, in fact, your description of ‘the sarcastic, brand-hating bastards that populate the planet ‘ in this instance is also completely off. There are a lot of people that would be happy to see an almost cartoon like name, not unlike all of the animals and machines that now populate children’s TV with happy, fun names and faces, grace an otherwise invisible, dull and unheard of vessel. The idea of using the name as fundraising mentioned above is a brilliant idea. Perhaps you have spent too much time in cynical brand marketing and lost sight of the fact that people don’t always want worthy marketing and sometimes just want some happiness in the world.
Couldn’t agree more. But perhaps some people secretly prefer to be a little snooty and keep out the plebs.
Hi Mark, I love your articles, but I have to disagree with your title “Boaty McBoatface proves the public would rather humiliate your brand than engage with it” – I would have to say it proves nothing of the kind. What IMHO it does prove is that so many corporate bosses and marketing heads are so up tight and take their brands and products so damn seriously that they have completely lost touch with ‘the person on the street’.
Most of us do not live in this rather odd 1950’s style TV interpretation of how the world looks. Most people are just out there going about their business and trying to enjoy themselves, whilst trying not to take things too seriously, unless they actually are really serious. They don’t really care if they drink Coke or Pepsi or wash with Dove or Zest. Of course, we all have our ‘preferences’ which can change, but at the end of the day, brands just don’t feature anywhere near as highly in peoples lives as brand managers think. That is why brand marketing is so important and why some get it right and some get it wrong.
Personally I think their biggest mistake was not to call it Boaty McBoatface, it bet more people would follow its travels if they did.
Yeah, I know I’m late commenting on this but…..well, no but, just. I’m late. Live with it. Fun renamings are nothing exclusive to Crowdsourcing – they’re just more visible now. When I was a student many millennia ago at Sheffield Polytechnic the Student Union thought that they should rename some of their Union rooms. The building was already the Nelson Mandela Building and there were various other buildings and rooms named after other political and social giants(The Steve Biko Suite for example) and so they presumably thought that tradition would be maintained by the politically savvy and aware student body. As a result of this stunning lack of awareness the Television room in the Student Union was officially christened the Yosemite Sam room…..
Thanks for sharing these, Ritson. I haven’t laughed that hard all year. I happen to find trolls incredibly inventive when seeking to drop the smack on a brand, and the “Hitler did nothing wrong” still has me dying with laughter.
Lol. Hehehehe