“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses”. This probably is the most famous quote on market research and innovation ever, even though it looks like Henry Ford never said it.

Indeed, it’s challenging to use the information about things that consumers already know to create or assess something that doesn’t exist.  So while the quote holds true in many occasions, engaging consumers in co-creation could still make miracles for brands. Even if this doesn’t involve creating something completely new!

A great example of that is a recent Nike’s “Vote Forward” contest, when the company asked twelve designers from nine countries to make their versions of existing Air Max sneakers’ models and then consumers were to vote and decide which design goes in production and is available in stores globally.

Air Max I is considered to be one of the greatest sneakers in history. Inspired by Centre Pompidou visit, it was created in 1987 by Tinker Hatfield – apparently a legend in design world – who also developed a lot of hugely successful Nike shoes including many Air Jordan models  and self-lacing shoes worn by Marty McFly in “Back to the Future II”. Since then Air Max has grown into a huge product family, gained an army of loyal fans and left a mark in fashion and street culture. For example, surge of popularity in Japan in 90s led to a phenomenon known as “Air Max hunting”. High prices of the shoes led to a rash of muggings (in otherwise peaceful Japan!) wherein Air Max wearers were attacked and their shoes were stolen!

Until the first advertising of Air Max I in 1987 original Beatles songs had never been used in advertising. Nike was the first company to change that and the name of the song was “Revolution”. To use this song Nike’s advertising agency paid to Michael Jackson (!), who owned the rights to a part of the Beatles’ catalogues at that time.

So Air Max has it all: story of ground-breaking air-sole innovation, links to fashion, sub-culture groups acceptance, Nike’s running shoes heritage and contemporary vibe. It’s a great story engaging at many levels and appealing both for Nike’s hard-core fans and those yet to be converted.

Started at a global level this project then could be re-packaged by local teams depending on the stage of a market, core target audience and local objectives. Sounds like this could be a win-win-win for HQ marketers, local brand teams and consumers. Yet paradoxically this kind of projects usually is not favored by local marketers and potentially could leave lots of people unhappy!

How voting contests could leave participants dissatisfied

• Those who voted might get emotional if they strongly disagree with the final choice. In case of Nike’s contest designers selected for the project came from 9 countries: US (two), UK, China (two), Mexico, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Netherlands and S. Korea – perhaps biggest markets for Nike and probably most significant for global designer community. In this set-up designs essentially represented countries, so voting for their country probably defined the choice to a large extent. In this game the biggest market has more chances. So who’s eventually won? Well, it happened to be a design from US… Which probably left all others thinking that to their disappointment the rest of the world neither understand nor appreciate their culture. Unfortunately, some of these people will probably be less enthusiastic about giving brands their opinion, help or time in the future.
• Local marketing teams might feel unappreciated. Before the voting each of the nine marketing teams naturally thought that their design is the best ever and only a blind man can choose something else. There is only one winner, so after voting eight of those teams inevitably have to lose. Besides organizing this kind of a project requires a lot of time. Not always this results in measurable commercial or brand equity gains.
• Designers criticizing consumers’ choice. Likewise, those eleven creatives might feel a bit unhappy. Having an opportunity to work on an iconic shoe probably compensates way above all other dissatisfactions. However if they choose to share their criticism of other competing designs in social media, this might not go well for the brand.

Making sure those positive emotions are here to stay

Any contest creates a high emotional charge but also leaves some people disappointed. Like in sport actually. The way to deal with this in sport is (1) strict and clear rules and (2) almost always offer a second chance at a next tournament be it in a month or in four years. What could be the ways to preserve this charge of a positive energy for a brand after a vote is over?

1. Showing to people that their vote or contribution were heard and eventually made a difference. For example in Nike’s contest, it would have sent a great message to consumers if all designs have gone in production within their home countries. This could be restricted to a limited number, availability only for a short time, accessible only to those who voted etc. Given that participants are active brand supporters, even if this limited production doesn’t bring profits, this is money well spent!
2. Balancing rational and emotional and providing consumers with authentic, fair and engaging experience. If it’s likely that some players are perceived to have higher chances to win, the game could leave more participants disappointed. How to address this in Nike’s case? There might be several options. For example, having maximum number of votes per country or even doing this as a sport event with group stage, quarter/semifinals and the final!
3. Speaking consumer language rather than brand language. How many times as a consumer you heard the word “revolution” in advertising of a new product? Revolution in shaving, revolution in make-up, in cooking, in hygiene, in fashion, in watch-making… Hardly people could take more of that. All designers of this Air Max project were named by Nike “Revolutionairs”. Could have been cool if not for the other hundred revolutions initiated by marketers during the last weekL
4. Engaging with those who voted after the contest. Staying united after sharing same values, preferences, wins or losses could be a guarantee that these people will never again look towards Adidas or other competitors.

Balancing emotional and rational

This type of consumer promotion is a common practice. Typically it is a limited exposure, small part of a marketing plan, so why it deserves all these words? For two reasons.

Firstly, classic FMCG approach would be to avoid campaigns or concepts that potentially could polarize consumers, unless the size of the opportunity is really big. Athletes are modern heroes and cheering for one’s team creates some of the most heated debates and passionate behaviours. With handy help of social media those emotions are asking to be used in marketing campaigns to engage consumers. At the same time campaigns with a possibility of conflict between consumers are risky and whether or not it’s a right way to go is one of those million dollar questions.

Secondly, planning any activity it’s worth asking whether these resources and efforts could be applied more efficiently. Not always there is a definite answer to that and then it becomes a question of intuition and daring.

How successful was this Nike’s project? Difficult to say. It would be good to see their internal data on consumer satisfaction and to know their sales results. Did any of those who voted for all the non-winning designs eventually bought the winning model?

A lot of modern multinationals wouldn’t dare to run a consumer engagement program with potentially polarizing effect. To the company credit, Nike did it. Would you?