That's what "bros" across the land are hearing upon being forced to drink a Smirnoff Ice in one of the most bizarre real-life Internet meme strikes since Rick Astley Rick-Rolled the Thanksgiving Day Parade.The premise is simple. Basically, a bro can present a Smirnoff Ice to one of his bros at any time in any setting, and the recipient must get on one knee and chug the beverage. According to the official web authority on the matter, brosicingbros.com, "you cannot refuse an Ice. If you refuse to drink the Ice, you are instantly excommunicated and shunned..."
The social game, according to Fortune (yes, they actually did a story on this) started on college campuses in South Carolina and has since spread throughout the country to tech corporations, hedge funds, and investment banks. It certainly seems that you ain't cool unless you ice your bros.
The key to "winning" the game, although nobody actually can win because the game never ends, you can only Ice or be Iced, is hiding Ices in places a bro would never think to come prepared. If you have an Ice on you, you may block an attack and force the Icer to drink themselves. If the Ice is left in an obscure place, the recipient bro almost certainly will be caught off guard and be forced to drink it.
The obvious assumption to make is that this started as some guerilla marketing campaign by Smirnoff and or Diageo, the UK company that owns the brand. After all, it is every product's dream to have some grassroots movement started by a target that has traditionally ignored or avoided your product.
Alas, according to the company, this in not the case. A company spokeswoman claims:
"The icing phenomenon is consumer generated ... Some people think it's fun. Diageo never wants underage icing."
The casual use of the term "icing" is very humorous to me, it says that either she's lying (almost certainly not the case) or that they've received countless inquiries as to their role in the fad (most likely).
Bros Stoning Bros?
Here, I have to digress for a moment. I've always had trouble believing that alcohol companies do not support underage drinking (or "icing" in this case). It's comparable, in my mind, to saying that tobacco companies have never (subliminally or otherwise) targeted children. We know that these companies aren't ALLOWED to target underage consumers (or else Lesley Fair and the FTC will behead them), that doesn't mean that they don't do so, even unintentionally.
My favorite example (and I've ranted about this before) is Keystone Light. Anyone that's ever set foot on an American college campus has probably had an encounter with Stones. Known more so for it's dirt-cheap price than its purported "Always Smooth" taste, Keystone is a staple amongst collegiate (read: underage) binge drinkers.
I have a hard time believing that MillerCoors, the parent company of the Keystone brand, is unaware that a majority of their business is directly related to underage consumers. If consumers were truly concerned with the "smooth" taste of their brew, chances are they wouldn't head to the back of the convenience store cooler for a 30 rack of Stones. Despite this, Saatchi and Saatchi is renewing the "smooth" USP with a series of commercials featuring the Always Smooth Keith Stone:
Cleverness of the spot notwithstanding, I think the brand would be much better served promoting its' low price than it's (dare I say) smooth taste. Advertising, especially creative advertising, can cure a lot of ills, but you need to get the USP right. Is it wrong to advertise to a target which can not legally purchase your product? Probably. But is it bad for business? Usually not.
Back to my original thought: do I believe that Smirnoff is not behind the Bros Icing Bros phenomenon? Yes, I suppose I do. While it will certainly help boost sales in the short term (despite some evidence to the contrary), it's just too silly (read: genius) of an idea to have been conceived by marketing execs. At least Smirnoff isn't advertising the wrong message or to the wrong people, like Keystone (or my other alcoholic bugaboo, Mike's Hard) does.
The obvious assumption to make is that this started as some guerilla marketing campaign by Smirnoff and or Diageo, the UK company that owns the brand. After all, it is every product's dream to have some grassroots movement started by a target that has traditionally ignored or avoided your product.
Alas, according to the company, this in not the case. A company spokeswoman claims:
"The icing phenomenon is consumer generated ... Some people think it's fun. Diageo never wants underage icing."
The casual use of the term "icing" is very humorous to me, it says that either she's lying (almost certainly not the case) or that they've received countless inquiries as to their role in the fad (most likely).
Bros Stoning Bros?
Here, I have to digress for a moment. I've always had trouble believing that alcohol companies do not support underage drinking (or "icing" in this case). It's comparable, in my mind, to saying that tobacco companies have never (subliminally or otherwise) targeted children. We know that these companies aren't ALLOWED to target underage consumers (or else Lesley Fair and the FTC will behead them), that doesn't mean that they don't do so, even unintentionally.
My favorite example (and I've ranted about this before) is Keystone Light. Anyone that's ever set foot on an American college campus has probably had an encounter with Stones. Known more so for it's dirt-cheap price than its purported "Always Smooth" taste, Keystone is a staple amongst collegiate (read: underage) binge drinkers.
I have a hard time believing that MillerCoors, the parent company of the Keystone brand, is unaware that a majority of their business is directly related to underage consumers. If consumers were truly concerned with the "smooth" taste of their brew, chances are they wouldn't head to the back of the convenience store cooler for a 30 rack of Stones. Despite this, Saatchi and Saatchi is renewing the "smooth" USP with a series of commercials featuring the Always Smooth Keith Stone:
Cleverness of the spot notwithstanding, I think the brand would be much better served promoting its' low price than it's (dare I say) smooth taste. Advertising, especially creative advertising, can cure a lot of ills, but you need to get the USP right. Is it wrong to advertise to a target which can not legally purchase your product? Probably. But is it bad for business? Usually not.
Back to my original thought: do I believe that Smirnoff is not behind the Bros Icing Bros phenomenon? Yes, I suppose I do. While it will certainly help boost sales in the short term (despite some evidence to the contrary), it's just too silly (read: genius) of an idea to have been conceived by marketing execs. At least Smirnoff isn't advertising the wrong message or to the wrong people, like Keystone (or my other alcoholic bugaboo, Mike's Hard) does.
