How we got 12,000 people to participate in Fairfirst's Women's Day message with a total budget of under $900*
*Double-verified via Meta & Google Analytics
Brands do special day campaigns because they don't want to be the odd one who doesn't have a women's day post. Fairfirst wanted to do something that people could participate in, instead of just ‘like and forget’.
- Portfolio
- Principal · Fudge
- Client
- Fairfirst Insurance
- Sector
- General Insurance
- Scale
- Island-wide, special day campaign
- Where
- Sri Lanka
- Engagement
- Stunt Marketing
- Over
- 1 day · 2022
Women's Day brand messages do more bad for women than good.
Pseudo-sentimental, see through messages that don't do anything but remind people the sad situation of women, retailers offering sales on kitchen items, and tone deaf commentaries on the place of women: the whole ordeal is a sad testament of how little of a sh*t both men and women seated in the top chairs actually give about the women at the workplace and outside of it.
The voices of real women stayed hidden on the special day, as it did during any other day.
The schema, and the violation of it
We have a template as to what the world (or our bosses) expect of us during a special day. Everyone's happy as long as no one violates it.
- The marketing head thinks that the CEO wants a positive post.
- The agency knows it's a lie but delivers what's asked of them because they have ‘bigger fish’ to fry.
- The people on social media don't fuss too much because there are more interesting things to worry about.
The team had the good luck of having a client who insisted on violating that schema.
Step 01. Behavioural Research
We needed to understand what happens inside the multiple pockets of societies spanning from the client boardroom to the social media feed. What goes into motivating humans to become altruistic online. Our research led us to Self Determination Theory (SDT).
Step 02. Technical feasibility
Fudge developed the ‘Can you hear her’ campaign: a video that could be heard only when it was shared by enough people. Based on how people are motivated to behave online.
We understood the dynamics of a bribe-to-subscribe model where the user had to (i) watch content (ii) convince others to watch it, so that they could increase the volume of the video for all future users. It now had to be executed via technology that didn't exist.
Once we developed the cheapest tech stack to deliver the idea, we rolled it out.
What the work did.
- 12,000shares on the day of International Women's DayAgainst a KPI of 5,000 over the weekend. 16,400 by 31 March, against a KPI of 7,500.
- 860,000people reached in 12 hoursAgainst a KPI of 600,000, at a frequency of 2.4 rather than the 2 that was asked for.
- 60,000site visits, 7% of everyone reachedAgainst a KPI of 24,000 visits, which would have been 4% of the people reached.
- Reach the maximum number of people with the message
- Target600,000 people within 12 hours · frequency at least 2 · CPM $0.02
- Actual860,000 people in 12 hours · frequency 2.4 · CPM $0.02
- Create interest
- Target24,000 site visits (4% of people reached)
- Actual60,000 site visits (7% of people reached)
- Maximum active participation
- Target5,000 shares over the weekend of IWD, and 7,500 shares by the end of March
- Actual12,000 shares on the day of IWD, 16,400 shares by 31 March
43% overachieved while maintaining frequency and CPM
150% overachieved
140% overachieved within 12 hours. The 31 March KPI overachieved by 118%
As per the Google Analytics reports, March 2022.
Measured on Google Analytics and cross-checked against Facebook analytics. The KPI column was set before the campaign ran rather than chosen afterwards, and every percentage in it reconciles: 860,000 against 600,000 is the 43%, 60,000 against 24,000 is the 150%, 12,000 against 5,000 is the 140%, and 16,400 against 7,500 is the 118%.
One figure is under query and is printed as it was reported rather than relabelled. The $0.02 is given as a CPM, but 860,000 people at a frequency of 2.4 is about 2.06 million impressions, and a $0.02 CPM against that is roughly $40 of media rather than the sub-$900 budget in the title. The same $0.02 reconciles precisely as a cost per site visit: $900 across 60,000 visits is $0.015. Read it as a per-visit cost until the brand confirms otherwise.
Neither platform is an independent source. Both are the accounts the campaign ran on, which is the normal state of affairs for a one-day social campaign and worth saying rather than leaving to be assumed.