The key, KFC claims, is very simple. Content is obviously king and so great gigs, filmed well, were a must -- but so too was that feeling that viewers were seeing acts they might not usually get access to. The gigs were apparently not just up-and-coming artists but up-and-coming artists from around the world. So that box was obviously ticked.
Where the brand made the biggest stride, in my opinion, however, was the answer to that age-old digital marketing question -- who wants a tweet from their toilet roll? Or rather, who wants to see a video or read a post from a piece of fried chicken, no matter how tasty? The answer is always negative. Nobody does, until you put the spin on it and the question brings you to a more helpful discussion around what's in it for the customer.
Put more simply, we're in the age of instant gratification. So what are you doing for the customer that gives them something right there, and then to give you some interest? Like any worm, there will always be a hook to deepen that engagement, but unless there's a worm on the hook, it's pretty hard to get people interested for long enough to see that your content is, actually, pretty compelling.
That's where KFC made the real difference. Viewers of its 99 Gigs series were able to become a "99p VIP" -- a chicken offer redeemed through its loyalty programme. So it might sound pretty old school, and that's for the very good reason that it is. The content was compelling and the influencers were well chosen and briefed as hosts but there was also a worm on that hook, food for less than a pound.
There's a lot of competition out there for attention, so I'd suggest that one way of earning it is to appeal to consumers wanting instant gratification -- and a piece of chicken for less than a quid.