Kraft gave customers the opportunity to vote for one of six names in response to the negative publicity.  We’re told that around 10,000 customers voted for Cheesybite, equivalent to 36% of the total vote making it the most popular name -  just pipping ‘none of the above’.

What seemed like a good idea to involve its customers in the process of naming a new product has turned into a significant issue for the marketing team and senior management.

On the upside, the fiasco has garnered fantastic exposure for the product and extended the lifespan of the campaign (though not by design).  It seems fairly obvious that the Cheesybite name would have generated far less collumn inches had the iSnack 2.0 debacle been avoided all together.

On the downside, Kraft has lost credibility with the media, the blogging community and other influencers.  But does that matter?  The grocery decision maker would probably have discussed the iSnack 2.0 name as a result of the media coverage. I doubt that the name change will have a negative influence on buying decisions, quite the opposite in terms of awareness.

The product has apparently sold in high volume as a result of the ‘name me’ campaign.  The net result  of this is probably increased exposure for the product and some valuable lessons learnt by Kraft.

On the downside, Australian brands will approach any kind of crowdsourcing program with a high degree of caution as a result of these events.  Many will be less likely to involve their customers in product development and branding decisions, which is a shame as it is a proven method of building loyalty and generating word of mouth.

The marketing industry is naturally conflicted when it comes to promoting its own successes.  The digital revolution (if you like) means that many different types of agencies are competing for the same dollars, which makes them very proactive when it comes to finger pointing when things go wrong and less likely to celebrate success when things go well, unless its their own.