Mikado Resistance Test

You are doing your shopping in a mall, and you spot a giant Mikado dispenser. Above it, a message scrolls: “Une envie de Mikado ? Vous ne devriez pas…”. A free box is right there. The temptation is immediate. People hesitate for half a second, then they reach for it anyway.

The moment the “victim” takes the Mikado, reality shifts. In a beat, they “fall” into an absurd, high-stakes scene. A nightmare wedding. A robbery. A knife-throwing scenario. Six variations. Each one staged to make a single point feel physical: Mikado is hard to resist, even when you are warned not to.

The idea in one line

Turn “irresistible” from a claim into a public dilemma. Then prove it by watching people choose temptation in front of everyone.

What Buzzman builds for Mikado

This is a deliberately simple setup with a brutal logic loop:

Step 1. Offer the product for free, but add a warning

The dispenser invites you, then immediately tells you not to do it. That contradiction creates tension and curiosity in the exact moment of decision.

Step 2. Make the consequence entertaining, not moralizing

When the actor takes the box, they “drop” into a surreal scenario. The audience in the mall watches the fall. Then they watch the scene unfold. The humor is the proof mechanic.

Step 3. Extend it into a digital series with repeat value

The campaign runs as a set of videos with multiple protagonists and outcomes. The variety matters because it turns one stunt into a format.

Step 4. Make the viewer complicit

At the end of the video experience, you can choose who becomes the next “victim.” That interactive twist is not a gimmick. It reinforces the theme: you are part of the temptation chain.

Why it works

It turns a brand truth into a behavioral test

The campaign does not explain why Mikado is irresistible. It sets up a moment where resisting is the story.

The warning is the creative fuel

“You shouldn’t” is what makes people want to do it. The copy creates the tension. The action resolves it.

The audience reaction is the distribution engine

People do not only watch the “victim.” They watch the crowd. The social proof is built into the scene itself.

The deeper point

If you want a product attribute to stick, stop describing it. Build a situation where people demonstrate it for you. Especially when the attribute is emotional (irresistible, addictive, impossible to ignore), the most persuasive proof is behavior under temptation.


A few fast answers before you act

What is the core mechanic?

A public dispenser offers free Mikado while warning you not to take it. When someone does, the stunt flips into a staged “consequence” scenario that proves irresistibility.

Why multiple scenarios?

Because a single stunt becomes a repeatable content format. Six outcomes keep it watchable and shareable.

What is the role of interactivity?

Viewers can choose the next “victim” at the end of the video experience, extending participation beyond the mall moment.

What is the transferable pattern?

Design a public “temptation test” where the desired product truth is demonstrated through behavior, not explained through messaging.

What is the biggest risk?

If the consequence feels mean-spirited or unsafe, the tension flips from funny to uncomfortable. The stunt has to stay playful.

Tipp-Ex: A Hunter Shoots a Bear

If you have ever wanted to hijack a storyline mid-play, Tipp-Ex delivers a brilliant “wait, what?” moment. A hunter is about to shoot a bear. Then the video breaks its own frame. The hunter reaches out, grabs Tipp-Ex, whites out the word “shoots” in the title, and invites you to write your own verb instead.

One verb becomes the remote control

This is an interactive YouTube takeover ad where the headline is the interface. You type a command into the title, and the story branches into a matching outcome. It is simple enough to explain in one line. It is also instantly rewarding, because you see the consequence of your input right away.

In European FMCG marketing, few products have a built-in metaphor as literal as correction tape: white it out, then rewrite.

This is interactive video done right: it hands the viewer a single, obvious control. Replace one verb in the title, and the story instantly branches into a matching ending. That mechanism makes the product demonstration inseparable from the entertainment.

Why it lands: you are not watching, you are steering

The psychological hook is viewer control with near-zero friction. You are not asked to learn a UI, register, or navigate a microsite. You do one small thing (type a verb), and you get a big payoff (a fresh scene). That combination of agency and immediacy turns curiosity into repeat plays, because every new verb feels like another door.

The business goal hidden inside the gag

Tipp-Ex is not just sponsoring a funny clip. The brand behavior is the plot device. “White and rewrite” is demonstrated, not stated. The longer you experiment, the longer you stay with the brand idea, and the more likely you are to share it as “you have to try this.”

What to steal for your next interactive format

  • Make the control obvious. One input. One immediate, visible change.
  • Fuse product truth with interaction. The mechanic should only make sense for this brand.
  • Reward experimentation. Curiosity loops need fast feedback, not a slow reveal.
  • Design for retelling. People share experiences they can describe in one sentence.

A few fast answers before you act

What is “A Hunter Shoots a Bear” for Tipp-Ex?

An interactive video campaign where the viewer changes the story by editing a single word in the video title, turning the headline into the control surface.

What is the core mechanism that makes it interactive?

The campaign asks the viewer to replace the verb in the title and then routes them to a matching video outcome, so the typed command becomes the next scene.

Why did this format spread so widely?

It gives immediate viewer control and fast feedback. People share it because they can describe the interaction in one line and friends can instantly try their own outcomes.

What brand intent does this serve beyond “being clever”?

It makes Tipp-Ex (a correction tool) inseparable from the interaction. The product truth is the mechanic, so the brand is not optional to the idea.

What is the most transferable takeaway?

When the interaction is one obvious input with one visible change, curiosity turns into repeat play, and repeat play turns into distribution.