Apart from the small handful eschewing sponsorships on purity grounds, music festivals have become fodder for brands looking to get the eyeballs of adults aged around 18 to 35. There’s barely a patch of mud that isn’t for sale to an energy drink or clothes brand. Now, with the advent of decent live broadcasting, there’s even more for sale.

The Coachella music festival in California attracts massive acts every year, this year it boasted performances from Kanye West and The Strokes, and inevitably sells out its 75 000 tickets rapidly. In recent years, YouTube has come on board and brought the festival to the world, and this year they live broadcasted almost every act over three days. The dazzling custom YouTube home page opened up more space for advertising, and Wrigley’s 5 Gum took advantage, pasting their product all over it, even making the stream look like a stage. The branding was inescapable and, perhaps surprisingly for music fans, consumers didn’t care at all – in fact, they were thankful to 5 gum for making the live stream possible.

The #CoachellaLive Twitter feed below the broadcast regularly featured positive 5 Gum quips, with barely a negative review…

src=http://www.marketingmag.com.au/web_images/Picture%2010%281%29.png

Marketing magazine spoke with digital pro Kate Kendall about the YouTube festival takeover.

What do you think of the 5 Gum execution?

I think it's pretty smart and does the job but it's still rather boring and expected. I'd love to be surprised more through branded content. 

src=http://www.marketingmag.com.au/web_images/Picture%2019.png

The Twitter comments suggest people are realising sponsors are necessary. There’s been little backlash against it, mainly kind words. Do you think consumers are more accepting of advertising on the internet when they’re getting a service like this?

Definitely. I believe consumers are savvier than ever in regards to marketing, and understand that content goodness isn't provided by free fairies.

src=http://www.marketingmag.com.au/web_images/Picture%2018.png

Is it possible a lot of the positive comments were set up?

They look pretty legitimate to me. It wouldn't take long to spend a few minutes researching the Twitter usernames to analyse whether they were genuine. Perhaps one or two for good measure could have been thrown in by agency affiliates.

Is there enough of a call to action to buy the product, or doesn’t it matter because of the type of a product it is? Do you think the takeover will be effective in selling the gum?

I don't think there is a call to action involved in this and there doesn't need to be – it's purely branding. The takeover would be effective in aiding brand recall, and in turn, increasing gum sales.

What do you think of YouTube takeovers generally?

They offer a good platform for traditional-style advertising in the new media world.