????當(dāng)一個(gè)品牌滑入主流語境幾個(gè)小時(shí)，甚至功德圓滿，一舉成為熱門話題的時(shí)候，從長遠(yuǎn)來看，這類沖刺性的活動(dòng)其實(shí)沒有多大的價(jià)值?！吧缃幻襟w的關(guān)注總是稍縱即逝，”謝弗說?！叭绻@種關(guān)注度只出現(xiàn)一次，它們不一定是有意義的交流。人們都在談?wù)撃悴⒉灰馕吨麄冋诋a(chǎn)生購買沖動(dòng)?！碑?dāng)一個(gè)品牌花費(fèi)一整年時(shí)間通過自己的社交媒體賬戶塑造一種真正的個(gè)性化形象時(shí)，取得的傳播效應(yīng)要高效得多。在一場萬眾矚目的賽事直播期間通過Twitter玩一個(gè)可笑的惡作劇不會(huì)產(chǎn)生持久性影響。但奧利奧餅干(Oreo)和恰敏衛(wèi)生紙(Charmin)這樣的廣告主卻因全年都在發(fā)布有趣好笑的內(nèi)容、與消費(fèi)者持續(xù)互動(dòng)而備受贊譽(yù)。

????不過，杰西潘尼公司成功地進(jìn)入了集體語境之中。Esurance保險(xiǎn)公司通過超級碗大賽剛剛結(jié)束后播放的廣告也做到了這一點(diǎn)。約翰?克拉辛斯基飾演的發(fā)言人坐在一個(gè)盛滿現(xiàn)金的巨型立方體前面，告訴人們使用話題標(biāo)簽 #Esurancesave30在Twitter上發(fā)布留言，就有機(jī)會(huì)贏取150萬美元大獎(jiǎng)。與杰西潘尼公司不同，他們的花樣并沒有意想不到的轉(zhuǎn)折或笑話，而是單刀直入，徑直呼吁人們發(fā)布與它們相關(guān)的微博，這招很奏效。

????只有一個(gè)問題：當(dāng)一個(gè)話題標(biāo)簽像 #Esurancesave30那樣，在Twitter上爆炸性傳播時(shí)，它必然會(huì)吸引濫發(fā)垃圾郵件的人、惡意自動(dòng)程序和愛開玩笑的家伙。點(diǎn)擊任何一個(gè)超人氣話題標(biāo)簽，你將發(fā)現(xiàn)它被許多不相干的微博劫持了，一些付費(fèi)網(wǎng)站和垃圾郵件發(fā)送者時(shí)常采用這種方式發(fā)布一些粗俗下流的信息。就Esurance公司這個(gè)例子而言，最有損其品牌的問題是，Twitter上一下子涌現(xiàn)出了大批聲稱自己是Esurance公司官微的山寨賬戶。（視覺提示：這些賬戶沒有“認(rèn)證”標(biāo)識，而且它們的名稱基本上都多了一個(gè)字母，或者有其他容易被忽視的特征。）這些與Esurance聯(lián)系在一起，不可信賴的微博滿天飛，當(dāng)然對這個(gè)品牌不利。

????這一切意味著，大家并不一定會(huì)在冬奧會(huì)期間看到廣告商模仿杰西潘尼公司或Esurance保險(xiǎn)公司的花招。在冬奧會(huì)這樣一個(gè)備受世界重視的賽事期間，熱點(diǎn)話題的保溫時(shí)間有限，此外還有垃圾郵件的危害，相關(guān)品牌這么做可能會(huì)面臨疏遠(yuǎn)消費(fèi)者的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。奧運(yùn)會(huì)廣告大戰(zhàn)的贏家很有可能是那些投入大額預(yù)算制作官方廣告的品牌，這些廣告可能非常莊重，充滿感情色彩。其他品牌會(huì)嘗試著進(jìn)入主流語境之中，但成功的幾率不大。“這種時(shí)候，花錢打廣告就會(huì)被看到，”謝弗說?！暗绻@種時(shí)候只是發(fā)一些微博，你很快會(huì)被鋪天蓋地的噪音淹沒?！?/p>

????如今這個(gè)時(shí)代，情節(jié)劇是奧運(yùn)廣告的主流（現(xiàn)在或許也可以說，在這個(gè)情節(jié)劇成為超級碗主流廣告的新時(shí)代），展現(xiàn)幽默，獲得自發(fā)性傳播，需要付出成本。如果一家公司希望省下購買電視廣告的開支，嘗試著借道社交媒體捷徑獲得免費(fèi)的品牌宣傳，它就必須極其聰明，風(fēng)趣，或前衛(wèi)。吐槽比賽場館或運(yùn)動(dòng)員的低劣笑話可能走不遠(yuǎn)。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：葉寒

????Those brief spurts of activity -- when a brand slips into the mainstream conversation for a few hours or even when it achieves the holy grail of becoming a trending topic -- aren't that valuable in the long run anyway. "Social media mentions are fleeting," Schafer says. "These are not necessarily meaningful interactions if they happen just once. Just because people are talking about you doesn't mean they're being pushed to make a purchase." It is far more productive when a brand spends all year cultivating a real personality with its social media account. Pulling one funny prank on Twitter during one popular live event won't move the needle in a lasting way. But advertisers like Oreo and Charmin have earned praise for being interesting or funny enough all year to get continual interactions from consumers.

????Still, J.C. Penney succeeded in entering the collective conversation. Esurance did the same with its ad that aired just after the Super Bowl ended: Actor-spokesman John Krasinski, sitting in front of a giant cube of cash, told people to tweet the hashtag #Esurancesave30 for a shot at winning $1.5 million. Unlike J.C. Penney, their stunt had no twist or joke to it: They cut right to the chase and made a direct ploy to get people tweeting about them, and it worked.

????Just one problem: When a hashtag explodes on Twitter the way #Esurancesave30 did, it attracts spammers, bots, and jokers. Click any super-popular hashtag and you'll find unrelated tweets that have hijacked it, from pay sites to spammers to regular people tweeting lewd, offensive things. In Esurance's case, the issue most detrimental to its brand was that scores of copycat accounts emerged that purported to be Esurance official accounts, but were not. (Visual hints: These do not have the "verified" check mark and in most cases had one extra letter in the handle or some other easy-to-miss indicator.) The unreliable tweets flying around associated with Esurance were not ideal for the brand.

????What all of this means is that you shouldn't necessarily expect to see advertisers aping J.C. Penney's or Esurance's Super Bowl stunts during the Winter Games. In addition to the limited duration of buzz, and the dangers of spam, brands run the risk of alienating consumers during an event that the world takes very seriously. The winning brands at the Olympics will likely be the obvious ones: Those that have devoted big budgets to official ads, ads that look likely to be entirely serious and sentimental. Other brands will try to enter the conversation; few will succeed. "When you pay to get on there, you're going to be seen," says Schafer. "But when you tweet during one of these things, there is a ton of noise."

????In the age of the melodramatic Olympics ad, and now, perhaps, the new age of the melodramatic Super Bowl ad, humor and spontaneity come at a cost. If a company looking to skip the expense of buying a TV ad tries to gain free brand buzz by way of a social media shortcut, it's going to have be extremely clever, funny, or edgy. And mean jokes about the venue or the athletes probably won't fly.