Michael Jackson’s Thriller has reached its 25th anniversary, and Sony BMG has prepared a commemorative album to celebrate the milestone. To promote this release, Sony initiated a campaign involving large performances of the zombie dance from the Thriller video. Groups of paid dancers have broken into seemingly impromptu zombie shuffles in undergrounds from London to Copenhagen,
NY Times Article: Dancers in the Crowd Bring Back ‘Thriller’
In Britain, Sony BMG executives videotaped professional dancers in everyday settings — like the Tube and a Tesco supermarket. The results had a gritty street reality that mirrored amateur tributes like the video made in a Filipino prison, where more than a 1,000 orange-suited inmates performed “Thriller” as their daily exercise. That clip has been viewed more 11 million times on YouTube, about twice as many times as Mr. Jackson’s original version on that site.“It’s really guerrilla marketing,” said Roger Menz, vice president for international strategic marketing for Sony BMG. “You go in, do your thing and leave as fast as you can. There was never any intention to hand out leaflets and say ‘Thriller’ is coming out again. It’s just bringing ‘Thriller’ back in the minds of people, but without the hard sell.”
But critics remain wary of the hazy line between guerrilla and “shill” marketing, an industry term for pitches whose source is not disclosed.
Read the article to find out more about these critics mentioned in the quote above. Personally, I think this is a great approach to marketing, and I don’t really have an issue with Sony not disclosing themselves as the ‘source’. Obviously they are staging these events in order to promote the album, but since the event can stand on its own as a ‘performance’, who cares if they don’t have their name prominently displayed? I doubt the people watching the dance routine cared. Since they are not advertising or promoting a specific product (the album), why should there be disclosure? I think the seemingly impromptu nature of the dance is an important part of the actual performance. Having someone announce either before or after that “this performance was paid for by Sony BMG” would clearly detract from people’s enjoyment. If a company wants to put on a show and keep their name out of it, and it is not pushing some specific product, all the more power to them! Now, if the ‘show’ consists of a scripted dialogue between two people on how great an album is, then maybe the line has been crossed…
Links to YouTube: