An unexhaustive, nebulous counterpoint:
An Exploration of the Non-Retentive Impact of the Campaign
It’s Effectiveness in Gaining New Customers
My tentatively speculated definition of the anti-Whopperists, i.e., why they oppose Whopperism (w/ varying degrees of anti-Whopperism):
They’re vegetarians or a variation thereof
They believe cows are sacred
They don’t like burgers
They don’t like hamburger buns
They don’t like Burger King (guilt by association)
Others
I would consider the non-Whopperist to be a neutral or undecided demographic, a demographic that has not made a conscious decision to reject the Whopper. However, the non-Whopperist would not include those that hold beliefs that preclude them the Whopper as a viable choice (e.g. the sacredness of cows), even though they have not positively rejected the Whopper, their belief system precludes it’s consideration. This group is considered anti-Whopperist in nature.
The non-Whopperists are vulnerable targets of the Whopper campaign. As I said earlier, the campaign used empirical evidence, i.e., not acted, to show the passion of Whopperists. This visual evidence of Whopperism lends the campaign ‘street cred’, an essential ingredient in today’s cynical society. People are always looking for something to believe in, something to cherish. It is only natural for man employ vicarious means as an exploration of hapiness. He knows men share a common nature, a categorical (Randian) resonance. If he witnesses one man’s joy (insinuated by the lament of the Whopper’s absence) caused by something he himself can easily acquire, he will consider this new alternative.
The first step in any advertising campaign is to first offer the product as something to be considered. The Whopper campaign seems to have made this first step. If the Whopper makes others happy, man will consider it’s viability as part of his own dietary fulfillment. Once the campaign has marched into the minds of man and man has decided to purchase the Whopper, it is the Whopper that decides BK’s fate. No matter how well presented the Whopper may be, the essence of the Whopper must prove itself to the sensory discernment of man. If it tastes good, then it has a good chance for success. If it tastes bad, then it has good chance for failure. This concept makes propaganda much more difficult to employ in certain sectors of the free market .Either yo mouth be likin it or it don’t. Too bad we can’t Whopperize the state, shove it in our mouths and decide whether it’s good or bad. Not good FOR you. This would negate the ‘propaganda is much more dfficult’ condition. Simply, “Does it taste good?”
P.S. I would imagine most campaigns for old products by large companies will naturally possess a strong retentive-effect bias, whether the campaign focuses on new blood or not.