thebrandtheory

[thebrandtheory]

The Blair Witch Project – Transmedia Storytelling

In 1999, a small indie horror film with a $60,000 budget pulled off one of the most legendary marketing campaigns ever (and grossed the film $248 million worldwide). There was no big-name actors, no CGI, and no traditional jump scares, yet it became one of the most profitable and culturally influential movies of all time. The Blair Witch Project wasn’t just a movie—it was a marketing phenomenon that blurred the lines between fiction and reality, using the internet and trans-media storytelling in ways never seen before.

The Blair Witch Project (1999) is a found-footage horror film that follows three student filmmakers—Heather, Josh, and Mike—who venture into the Black Hills Forest to investigate the legend of the Blair Witch. Armed with cameras, they document their journey, but as they become lost, eerie occurrences escalate, leading to paranoia and terror. The film’s raw, handheld style and minimalist storytelling create a sense of realism, blurring the line between fiction and reality. The film’s effectiveness comes from its realism and minimalism, using shaky, handheld camera work to create an authentic documentary feel. Unlike traditional horror films that rely on excessive gore or monsters, Blair Witch thrives on psychological terror, playing with the fear of the unknown. Adding to its unsettling nature, the actors were not given full scripts but only general story beats, forcing them to react naturally to disturbing situations. This improvisational approach made their fear feel genuine, culminating in a haunting final scene that left audiences disturbed and debating its meaning long after the credits rolled.

This trailer worked because it lacked big jump scares, special effects, or even a clear plot. This made it feel authentic, fueling curiosity and making audiences desperate to uncover the truth. More importantly, it blurred the lines of reality for audiences, people did not know whether the movie was staged or real.

Central to the film's marketing was the creation of an elaborate backstory surrounding the Blair Witch legend. This was achieved through various mediums: • Website: Launched in 1998, the official website featured faux police reports, interviews, and news articles detailing the disappearance of the three student filmmakers. This online presence played a crucial role in building suspense and curiosity, making it one of the earliest examples of viral marketing in cinema. IMDb even listed the actors as “missing”, reinforcing the illusion. This led to online speculation and debate—was this movie real or staged? By the time the film hit theaters, audiences were already invested. They weren’t just watching a horror movie; they were solving a mystery.

Picture of what the website looked like. • Mockumentaries: To further deepen the lore, the Sci-Fi Channel aired a 45-minute mockumentary titled "Curse of the Blair Witch" prior to the film's release. This program offered firsthand interviews with fictional colleagues and relatives of the missing filmmakers, enhancing the film's realism. • Missing Person Flyers: The filmmakers distributed flyers featuring the faces of the actors, treating them as genuine missing persons. This guerrilla marketing tactic sparked debates over the film's authenticity, drawing audiences eager to uncover the truth.

The film’s success teaches valuable lessons about storytelling and audience engagement. The Blair Witch Project thrived because it built an immersive world beyond the movie, engaging audiences in a way that felt real. It embraced mystery, allowing people to fill in the blanks with their own fears. And it was ahead of its time in understanding how the internet could turn a small indie film into a cultural event. And beyond its financial success, the film changed the way horror movies were marketed and inspired an entire subgenre. Its influence is seen in later films like Paranormal Activity, Cloverfield, and REC, all of which used found footage and viral marketing tactics to great success. In contrast, many modern movie marketing campaigns struggle because they overexpose films before their release, fail to engage audiences beyond traditional ads, or try too hard to force viral moments.

While The Blair Witch Project demonstrated how innovative marketing could turn a low-budget film into a blockbuster, Cats (2019) serves as a textbook example of how poor marketing choices can doom a film before it even hits theaters. The film, an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s hit Broadway musical, was intended to be a major holiday releaseand a visual spectacle that blended musical theater with cutting-edge CGI. Instead, it became one of the most mocked films in recent history, losing an estimated $100 million at the box office and sparking widespread ridicule. Its failure wasn’t just about the film itself—it was about a marketing campaign that misread its audience, overhyped flawed technology, and failed to generate genuine excitement.

One of the film’s biggest marketing blunders was its first impression. The release of the initial trailer in July 2019 was met with immediate backlash, as audiences were horrified by the film’s bizarre CGI designs. Instead of opting for traditional costumes or animation, the filmmakers chose to digitally superimpose human faces and features onto cat-like bodies, creating an unsettling “uncanny valley” effect. This wasn’t the whimsical or magical world audiences expected—it was unintentionally creepy. The internet exploded with negative reactions, with many users comparing the characters to nightmare fuel rather than beloved musical icons. Instead of generating intrigue, the trailer became a meme, with social media flooded with jokes and parodies. Unlike The Blair Witch Project, which used mystery to its advantage, Cats revealed too much too soon—leaving audiences turned off rather than curious.

Here is the trailer to the movie:

The marketing campaign also failed to connect with the right audience. The Broadway version of Cats has a passionate but niche fanbase—one that appreciates theatricality, live performance, and surreal storytelling. However, Universal Studios promoted the movie as a big-budget blockbuster, aiming for a wide mainstream audience that had little connection to the stage production. Instead of marketing the film as a unique theatrical experience, they focused on star power, highlighting cast members like Taylor Swift, Idris Elba, and James Corden. While celebrity endorsements can sometimes elevate a film, they didn’t make sense in this case, as none of these stars had strong ties to the theater world. The marketing campaign felt confused—was this film meant for die-hard theatergoers, fans of pop stars, or general movie audiences? By failing to define a clear target audience, Cats ended up appealing to no one.

The result was a box office disaster. Cats opened to a dismal $6.5 million in its first weekend, failing to compete with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker and other holiday releases. It ended its theatrical run with just $75 million worldwide, far below the estimated $300 million it needed to break even. Critics were brutal, with some calling it one of the worst movies ever made, while audiences largely stayed away. Instead of being an end-of-year hit, Cats became a cautionary tale in film marketing and production.

Final Takeaways: Why Blair Witch Worked: • Built mystery & intrigue instead of revealing too much • Made people feel like they were part of the story • Used cheap, creative marketing tactics that paid off massively

Why Cats Flopped: • Gave audiences too much information too soon (and it was terrifying) • Misunderstood who the target audience was • Let the internet control the narrative in the worst way

The biggest lesson? Marketing isn’t just about getting attention—it’s about getting the right kind of attention. One film got audiences hooked before they even saw it. The other had audiences mocking it before it hit theaters.

[thebrandtheory]

Coca-Cola's "Share a Coke"

In the world of marketing, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been rivals for decades. But while Coke has mastered emotional storytelling, Pepsi has had some missteps—none bigger than its Kendall Jenner protest ad.

So, what did Coca-Cola do right, and where did Pepsi go so, so wrong? Let’s break it down.

Coca-Cola’s “Share a Coke” campaign launched in 2011 and became one of the most successful marketing campaigns of the decade.

Why did it work?

• Personalization & Connection Coke replaced its logo with people’s names, encouraging customers to find and share bottles with friends, family, or even strangers. This created a personal connection between the brand and consumers.

• User Engagement & Social Media Buzz People searched for their names in stores. They took selfies with their Coke bottles. Coca-Cola created custom digital bottles so anyone could participate.

The result? People felt included in the brand. They didn’t just buy Coke—they shared it.

• Universal Appeal Coca-Cola wasn’t selling a political message or forced activism—it was selling a universal, feel-good experience. The campaign tapped into a basic human desire: the joy of seeing your name on something and sharing that moment with others.

• The Takeaway: Coke made people the center of the campaign—not the brand itself.

In 2017, Pepsi dropped an ad starring Kendall Jenner that tried to capitalize on social activism—but ended up being one of the biggest marketing fails ever. What was supposed to be a progressive, unifying message turned into a tone-deaf, widely ridiculed failure. 

What went wrong?

• Tone-Deaf Messaging The ad showed Kendall Jenner leaving a photoshoot to join a protest that was never really explained. Then, in the ultimate cringeworthy moment, she hands a police officer a Pepsi, and suddenly, everything is fine.

The ad trivialized real activism—especially Black Lives Matter protests—by suggesting that a soda could solve deep social issues.

• Lack of Authenticity Pepsi tried to jump on the social justice trend without actually supporting any real cause. Unlike Nike’s Colin Kaepernick campaign (which had a clear message and impact), Pepsi’s ad felt fake, corporate, and opportunistic.

• Wrong Spokesperson Pepsi chose Kendall Jenner, a wealthy celebrity with no connection to activism, to be the face of the protest. This made the campaign feel out of touch and performative.

This resulted in instant backlash. People called out Pepsi for mocking real movements, and within 24 hours, the company pulled the ad.

If You’re Going to “Go Woke,” Do It Right

Marketing can absolutely support social causes—but it has to be done authentically.

Nike’s Kaepernick campaign worked because it took a real stance and aligned with its core brand values.

This ad sparked debates, fueled both support and backlash, and solidified Nike’s reputation as a brand that takes a stand. Nike didn’t suddenly jump on a social justice bandwagon—they had a long history of supporting athletes who stood for something. They had previously worked with outspoken athletes like Serena Williams and LeBron James. And their message aligned with their brand identity—empowering athletes to push limits, no matter the cost.

Many conservative critics were furious at the ad, calling for boycotts and even burning Nike shoes. But Nike knew their audience. Nike’s core audience—young, diverse, socially aware consumers—overwhelmingly supported Kaepernick. The controversy made the campaign go viral, giving it free publicity. Nike wasn’t afraid to lose some customers because they gained more loyalty from their core market.

Pepsi’s ad failed because it was a corporate stunt that used activism as a gimmick. It tried to force a social message without any real authenticity, something consumers can smell from a mile away.

The Bottom Line: If you’re going to tie your brand to social issues, make sure it’s genuine, well-researched, and impactful. Otherwise… you might just end up pulling your ad in 24 hours.

What could Pepsi have done differently?

Pepsi clearly wanted to align itself with activism and the power of youth-led movements. But instead of genuine engagement, the ad felt like a corporate attempt to profit off social justice movements without taking a real stand.

Instead of this, they could have supported a real cause by partnering with real activist organizations and given a portion of proceeds to social justice movements. This would've highlighted real people making a difference instead of staging a fake protest. And the campaign would have been focused on positive community impact.

Imagine if Pepsi had created a scholarship fund for young activists or a documentary series on real changemakers. That would have been genuine, impactful marketing. Since 1986, Coca-Cola has run the Coca-Cola Scholars Program, which provides college scholarships to high-achieving high school seniors who demonstrate leadership, service, and a commitment to making a difference. Coca-Cola doesn’t just give money; they invest in the next generation of change-makers. Many Coca-Cola Scholars have gone on to create non-profits, launch businesses, and advocate for social issues.

Pepsi wanted to position itself as a brand that stands for social justice, but it failed because its approach was superficial and performative. Coca-Cola, on the other hand, has quietly built a legacy of real social impact through its Scholarship Program and other community initiatives.

[thebrandtheory]

Nike – "Just Do It"

Marketing is full of legendary campaigns that define brands and drive cultural movements. But for every success, there’s a campaign that almost had it—until it didn’t. One of the greatest marketing campaigns of all time? Nike’s "Just Do It." One that tried but flopped? Reebok’s "Be More Human." Both campaigns wanted to inspire. Both targeted active lifestyles. But only one left a lasting impact.

So, what made Nike’s campaign legendary while Reebok’s faded into the void?

Nike’s “Just Do It” is more than a slogan—it’s a cultural movement. Since its launch in 1988, the campaign has been a masterclass in emotional branding, resonating with athletes, casual fitness enthusiasts, and anyone chasing a goal. But what made it work so well, and why have similar campaigns failed?

Why did this video ad work?

Because instead of focusing on the features of their products, Nike told stories��real stories of people pushing their limits. They are selling determination.

Key reasons why it worked: • Emotional Connection – The campaign tapped into deep human emotions: ambition, struggle, and perseverance. • Simplicity & Universality – “Just Do It” applies to everyone—from a marathon runner to someone taking their first step into the gym. This positions Nike not just as a sportswear brand, but as a source of inspiration. • Authenticity & Boldness – Nike took risks, featuring athletes who had compelling stories, like Serena Williams. Their ads showcase a diverse range of individuals, emphasizing that athleticism and the pursuit of goals are universal. • Consistent Messaging Across Decades – Since 1988, Nike has never let go of "Just Do It." Unlike many brands that abandon their slogans after a few years, Nike stuck with it and made it the core of their identity. The Nike brand has become synonymous with motivation and success, and their slogan is known worldwide.

Now, look at this:

Reebok’s "Be More Human" campaign, launched in 2015, was meant to inspire people to push themselves physically and mentally—a similar goal to Nike’s campaign. But while Nike’s message stuck, Reebok’s quickly faded because...

• Weak & Forgettable Slogan "Be More Human"… okay, but what does that even mean? Unlike "Just Do It", which was simple and action-driven, Reebok’s slogan felt vague and uninspiring.

Picture yourself driving, what thoughts would this billboard invoke? Did it motivate you? Or just make you confused? Exactly.

• Lack of Emotional Pull Nike’s ads made you feel something—whether it was determination, perseverance, or pure adrenaline. Reebok’s campaign focused on physical toughness, but it lacked the raw emotion that connects with audiences.

Nike: You can do anything. Reebok: Push yourself harder.

One of these feels empowering. The other just feels exhausting.

• Failure to Build a Lasting Brand Identity Nike made "Just Do It" their entire personality. They stuck with it, reinforcing it across decades.

Reebok? They barely stuck with “Be More Human” for a few years before pivoting to something else. This inconsistency meant the campaign never truly became part of Reebok’s brand DNA.

Consider this ad Reebok made, it is similar to Nike's "Just Do It" ads, but fails to connect with its audience as well.

Strengths • Visual Impact: The advertisement effectively captures the intensity and dedication associated with challenging fitness routines, appealing to serious fitness enthusiasts. • Message of Personal Growth: By highlighting the transformative power of fitness, the campaign aligns with individuals seeking self-betterment and resilience.

Areas for Improvement • Emotional Connection: While the ad showcases physical determination, it lacks a deeper emotional narrative that resonates universally. Unlike Nike's "Just Do It" campaign, which connects on an emotional level, Reebok's message may come across as less relatable to a broader audience. • Slogan Clarity: The phrase "Be More Human" is somewhat abstract and may not convey a clear, immediate call to action or inspiration, potentially limiting its motivational impact.

Reebok’s “Be More Human” campaign had the right idea—it aimed to inspire personal transformation through fitness. However, it didn’t achieve the same cultural impact as Nike’s “Just Do It.” Here are some key missed opportunities and how Reebok could have made the campaign stronger:

1. Make the Slogan More Action-Oriented "Be More Human" is vague. It sounds profound, but it doesn’t offer a clear call to action.

Use a more direct, motivational phrase that encourages action. Nike’s “Just Do It” works because it’s a command—it tells people to take action. Possible alternatives: “Push Beyond” “Stronger Every Day” “No Limits”

2. Build a Stronger Emotional Connection The campaign focused heavily on physical intensity, but it didn’t evoke a deep emotional response.

• Use real-life transformation stories to show how fitness changes lives. • Feature people overcoming mental and emotional barriers, not just lifting weights. • Nike taps into raw, personal struggles—Reebok could have done the same. Instead of just showing tough workouts, they could highlight someone who used fitness to overcome adversity, like an injury, mental health struggles, or life challenges.

3. Give It a More Clear-Cut Identity The campaign didn’t feel distinct from other fitness messaging.

• Differentiate it from competitors (Nike, Adidas, Under Armour) • Make the visual style, tone, and messaging unique—right now, it blends into the noise of generic fitness motivation. • Reebok could have leaned into the scientific or psychological side of fitness, making “Be More Human” about mental resilience, not just exercise.

Final Takeaways: Nike built a movement, not just a campaign. The best marketing doesn’t just sell a product—it sells an idea, an identity, and a purpose. Want to make your campaign work? • Tap into emotions. • Keep it simple, powerful, and universal. • Stay consistent—great branding is a long game.

Nike’s message wasn’t about shoes—it was about you.

So, are you just going to think about your next move… or are you going to just do it?