A smokeless stove stunt made buzz for the right and wrong reasons.

First, for teasing with the headline that infamous rapper and avid smoker Snoop Dogg was “Giving up smoke”, succeeding in creating a conversation online and around the world.

When the reveal happened though, unveiling the truth, which was an ad for a smokeless stove, the latter’s company didn’t hit the mark and didn’t create the uplift in sales that it predicted would happen.

This caused an uproar and negative sentiment, ultimately leading to the resign of the CEO.

In the words of the company’s CFO, “While our unique marketing campaigns raised brand awareness of Solo Stove to an expanded and new audience of consumers, it did not lead to the sales lift that we had planned, which, combined with the increased marketing investments, negatively impacted our EBITDA.”

And while every business needs to see a return on its investments resulting in sales, it is the immediacy of it all that is questionable, and is reflective of how little of an understanding of the power of marketing management teams have.

The purpose of marketing is not to create an immediate sale. If that were the case, customers would run into a Nike store every time an inspirational campaign launched.

Yes, comms should have an impact on overall sales, but let’s be honest and not hide behind the truth: Marketing can only create consideration.

If a marketer can guarantee an uplift in sales, they’re overpromising.

What is intriguing about this debacle is that it re-posed the age-old question of how ROI is truly measured, and the fogginess that is “Brand awareness”.

We got used to seeing “conversions” happen quickly due to the prevailance of digital ads and E-com. But the model isn’t the same with stunts, which is something that Solo stove and other brands should take into account.

Stunts are a way to raise brand awareness and not lead a customer to check out with the item or service marketed.

As a spokesperson at Solo Brands said, “Solo Brands’ recent marketing campaigns drove and continue to generate exposure to new audiences, enabling us to reach previously untapped customer categories. In particular, Solo Brands considers the viral Snoop Dogg campaign extremely successful. It inserted our Solo Stove brand into cultural conversations, dramatically increased exposure for Solo Stove and laid the groundwork for future opportunities.”

This type of statement is indeed wise, but shows the discrepancy that is obvious between finance and the rest of the operation, one seeing an investment in marketing as something that should generate revenue, and another party who sees it as an investment in reputation and being present in conversations, something that cannot be quantified, and is, quite honestly, more important in the long term.

The other big issue that brands like Solo need to account for, is their product pricing.

Products that are niche and not easily accessible nor a necessity, will not find large success even with a big stunt and name associated with it.

The solution? Perhaps a sale tied with the campaign would have helped uplift conversions.

So should brands still invest in stunts and spend millions to follow through with them?

Yes, and very much so. Users are skipping through thousands of images, videos, audio tracks and other forms of media through our day, and a very small percentage makes an impact on them as consumers. In a world overwhelmed by ads, being in a conversation is more important than a short term rise in sale.

Having consumers associate a product with a name because of a stunt, is also a sign of success and leadership.

Patience is also a virtue, and brands who are patient enough to wait for their investment to come to fruition, whilst adding a grabbing component (a flash sale or other), as well as follow-up campaigns, will eventually win the long game.

So are big stunts going up in smoke?

Not if corporate can keep the lighter in their holster and be patient.