It sings, it dances, but does it sell?

Subservient chicken - Burger King's online mega buzz generator from last spring. Sure we were all talking about it. But are there tangible results, and did these results drive the business?

First, some interesting background on how this thing was distributed. Crispin Porter Bogusky (the agency who created the compliant fowl) apparently sent it to (just) 20 individuals who are friends of the agency. And it grew from there.

The results:

• On Thursday, April 8, just one day after the site went live, Crispin reported 8.2 million hits, with the average viewing period hitting 8 minutes and 52 seconds. The traffic hit a whopping 12.4 million hits on April 14, with an average viewing period of 6 minutes and 56 seconds.
• Total hits through April 21st (first 2 weeks) were 142,996,967, and average session length was 7:17 minutes (that’s 7.3 x 30-second commercials for anyone keeping score).

Sounds like pretty meaningful engagement, with a lot of people. Burger King was thrilled, I'm sure. But was there increased store traffic? Were more chicken sandwiches sold? Did perception of the brand change? Are these business results even appropriate to expect from viral?

And why was this thing so darned popular anyway?

Let us know if you've got the scoop or want to share your opinion.

Comments

[Simon Pearce]

Interesting stuff from our anonymous caller. I would like to ask a chicken and egg question (pun intended). Did funky chicken redefine the brand, did it did it communicate the (existing)brand better or was it just a random act of guerilla marketing that just happened to 'hit'?

[Chip Thompson]

According to a recent BK press release, sales are up 19% over last year.

Burger King's brand problem was choice, rather like Coke and Pepsi. As a restaurant, BK always places ahead of McD's in customer satisfaction--burgers, fries, everything but clean restrooms. Part of the problem is childhood bonds and associations--McD's touches a different part of your brain and heart.

The other part, as anyone who has worked in the QSR category can tell you, is getting people's attention to break their lunchtime routines. Especially when your total budget is less than what McD's spends to advertise breakfast biscuits (see Jack and the cows).

For twenty or so years, BK has had the budget to take on McD's, and they went through almost every large non-Omnicom agency in the country to come up with a magic bullet.

Nothing worked. Until the funky chicken.

So did the campaign work? Heck yeah. By getting people's attention through an engaging (if whacked) experience, people are stopping in instead of cruising on by. Brand perceptions changed? Brand communicated? Not sure, and I'm a bit afraid to ask.

By entertaining, it did "pull" people to engage with the brand in the mid-to-lower funnel, where I presume (from the 19% sales number) that they're coming back. If nothing else, the campaign has given BK a chance to succeed as a restaurant on its own merits in the retail space.

Pretty good work for a guy wearing a chicken suit and garters.

My question: can they sustain the momentum and buzz now that the chicken is old? The Angus Diet concept was original, if not as buzzworthy, but subsequent promotions, such as the the foray into cockfighting, have been derivative.