The Rotten Apples|海报/平面,APP|广告营销案例【ADGuider广告指南】

腐烂的苹果

案例简介：大纲 18至34岁的妇女中有三分之一是工作场所性行为不端的受害者，其中大多数保持沉默。2017年末，哈维 · 韦恩斯坦的故事破裂了。这是一个分水岭时刻，揭露了好莱坞几十年的系统性性虐待。每天之后，越来越多的不同人虐待的故事出来了。由此，我们的想法是创造一种工具，让道德媒体消费变得更容易，同时也让人们意识到电影和电视中的不当性行为是多么普遍。随着围绕这一主题的认识和对话的增加，希望有一个包容性的未来和一个没有不平等和性骚扰的工作场所。策略我们没有针对特定的人口或组织，也没有为媒体制定宏伟的计划。很简单。因为围绕这个问题的争议已经在所有媒体上如此普遍，我们知道如果我们的网站被抓住一点点，它就有可能爆炸。我们主动向《纽约时报》报道了打破温斯坦丑闻的独家报道。然后我们在自己的频道上分享。就像在中一样，四个创建者拥有自己的脸书和推特订阅源，并从那里有机地成长起来。烂苹果是媒体成为公关信息的经典例子。数字工具本身足够强大，可以自带水，我们所需要做的就是打开闸门，覆盖范围就会随之而来。这个名字本身，一个关于烂番茄的戏剧，是一个公关举措，旨在立即引起轰动，它做到了。相关性简报的目的是提高人们对数字工具的认识，强调电影和电视中普遍存在的不当性行为。随着围绕这一主题的意识和对话的增加，希望有一个包容性的未来和一个没有不平等的工作场所。我们通过与《纽约时报》谈判独家报道引发的简单公关计划，有机地发起并传播了这个消息。这一滚雪球滚滚而来，覆盖了100多家媒体。这个消息在几个小时内就传出去了。结果由于没有钱花在媒体上，该网站产生了大约57亿次印象 (6400万美元的媒体收入)，仅在网站上就有400万次搜索。平均每个游客花了令人震惊的14分10秒。流量在很大程度上归功于几乎每个主要渠道的200多篇关于它的文章，包括《纽约时报》、《名利场》、《Buzzfeed》、《石板》、《GQ》、《Vice》、《综合》、《Mashable》，《纽约客》等等。该网站也是各种新闻节目的主题，如CNN，HLN，Glenn Beck Show，CBS Sunday Morning，CBC，NPR的The Frame，PBS等。此外，这引发了一场激烈的公众讨论，讨论我们是否可以通过72,000多次独特的社会互动将艺术与艺术家分开。“腐烂” 的分类绝不是对项目的谴责 -- 通常，性虐待和性骚扰的受害者参与了这些项目，他们不应该受到进一步的影响-而是要通知观众并给他们一个新的镜头来观看项目。执行温斯坦丑闻于2017年10月5日爆发，由《纽约时报》主导。时机很重要，因为我们需要足够的时间在最初的故事结束后过去，让更多的人分享他们的 # MeToo故事。在《时代》杂志于12月8日宣布 # MeToo运动的女性为 “年度人物” 后，我们觉得我们的数据库足够广泛，足以启动该网站。12月11日，烂苹果网站上线。这个故事一旦上线，在该网站的四个创建者的个人社交渠道上分享后 -- 加起来他们有4,617个脸书朋友 -- 闸门打开了，导致GQ等出版物有200多个功能，名利场，Buzzfeed，Slate，华盛顿邮报，Vice，Complex，Mashable，《纽约客》和名单还在继续。活动描述《名利场》将其描述为 “一个带有后温斯坦扭曲的烂番茄” 它是一个非常简单的数字工具，旨在让消费者知道他们感兴趣的电影或电视节目是否与有不当性行为指控的人有关。通过将信誉良好的第三方文章连接到类似IMDB的开源数据库，用户只需输入电影或电视节目的名称，网站就会告诉他们一个项目是 “腐烂” 还是 “新鲜”。如果查询产生了一个 “糟糕” 的结果，它会列出指控与谁相关联，并提供信誉良好的第三方文章的链接，用户可以点击这里了解更多信息。因为系统被更新以反映实时报告的内容，所以网站还允许用户提供丢失的名字 -- 至少附上一个可信的来源 -- 或更正。

腐烂的苹果

案例简介：Synopsis A third of women between the ages of 18 to 34 have been victim to sexual misconduct in the workplace, with the majority of those remaining silent. In late 2017, the Harvey Weinstein story broke. This was a watershed moment that uncovered decades of systemic sexual abuse within Hollywood. Each day after, more and more stories of abuse by different people came out. From this, our idea was to create a tool that would make ethical media consumption easier as well as drive awareness of just how pervasive sexual misconduct is in film and television. With increased awareness and conversation surrounding the subject, the hope is for a future of inclusivity and a workplace free of inequality and sexual harassment. Strategy We didn’t target a specific demographic or organization, nor was there a grandiose plan for press. It was simple. Because the controversy surrounding the issue had been so pervasive across all media, we knew that if our site caught on even a little, it had the potential to blow up. We proactively pitched an exclusive story to The New York Times, which broke the Weinstein scandal. We then shared it on our own channels. As in, the four creators’ own Facebook and Twitter feeds and it grew organically from there. The Rotten Apples is a classic example of the medium being the PR message. The digital tool itself was strong enough to carry its own water, all we needed to do was open the floodgates and the coverage would follow. The name itself, a play on Rotten Tomatoes, was a PR move intended to create immediate buzz, and it did. Relevancy The goal of the brief was to generate awareness for a digital tool that highlights the pervasiveness of sexual misconduct in film and television. With increased awareness and conversation surrounding the subject, the hope is for a future of inclusivity and a workplace free of inequality. We launched and then spread the word about it organically, through a simple public relations plan triggered by negotiating an exclusive story with The New York Times. This snowballed into wider coverage with over 100 media outlets. The word was out within a matter of hours. Outcome With no money spent on media, the website generated roughly 5.7 billion impressions ($64 million in earned media) including 4 million searches on the site alone. Each visitor, on average, spent an astounding 14 minutes and 10 seconds. The traffic is in large part owed to the 200+ articles about it by virtually every major outlet including The New York Times, Vanity Fair, Buzzfeed, Slate, GQ, Vice, Complex, Mashable, The New Yorker and more. The site was also the subject of various news programming like CNN, HLN, The Glenn Beck Show, CBS Sunday Morning, CBC, NPR’s The Frame, PBS, etc. Furthermore, it’s sparked an intense public discussion over whether or not we can separate art from the artist with more than 72,000 unique social interactions. In no way is the “Rotten” classification meant to be a condemnation of a project–often, victims of sexual abuse and harassment worked on these these projects and they should not be further impacted–rather it is meant to inform viewers and give them a new lens with which to view a project. Execution The Weinstein scandal broke on October 5th, 2017, with The New York Times leading the story. Timing was important, as we needed enough time to pass after the initial story broke, to allow for more individuals to share their #MeToo stories. After Time Magazine proclaimed the women of the #MeToo movement as “Person of The Year” on December 8th–we felt that our database was extensive enough to launch the site. On December 11th, The Rotten Apples website launched. Once that story went live, and after sharing it on the personal social channels of the site’s four creators’–combined they have 4,617 Facebook friends–the floodgates opened leading to more than 200 features by publications such as GQ, Vanity Fair, Buzzfeed, Slate, Washington Post, Vice, Complex, Mashable, The New Yorker and the list goes on. CampaignDescription Vanity Fair described it as “a Rotten Tomatoes with a post-Weinstein twist.” What it is, is a very simple digital tool designed to let consumers know whether or not a film or television show they’re interested in is tied to someone with allegations of sexual misconduct. By connecting reputable third party articles to an open source database similar to IMDB, users simply type in the name of a film or television show and the site tells them whether a project is “Rotten” or “Fresh”. If the query yields a “Rotten” result, it lists out who the allegations are tied to and provides links to the reputable third party articles where users can click to learn more. Because the system is updated to reflect what’s being reported in real time, the site also allows for users to provide missing names–with at least one credible source attached–or corrections.