youth marketing 2 | SunMatrix Ramble

Nike Take Mokum: graffiti you paint by running

Boondoggle Amsterdam came up with a campaign for Nike that made running less serious. They distracted youngsters from their boring running schedules and challenged them to release their creativity on Amsterdam by using their feet as paint instead.

A Facebook app called “Take Mokum” (Amsterdam’s local nickname) was developed that allowed runners to make digital graffiti on the map of Amsterdam. All they had to do was actually run the route and upload their KMs with Nike+. In this context, Nike+ is simply the upload that validates the kilometres. The app would then paint the graffiti for them. These graffiti pieces could then be shared, and liked fanatically.

Running as a creative tool, not a discipline

The mechanism is beautifully simple: convert effort into expression. The runner designs a “tag” by choosing a route. Here, a “tag” is the graffiti-style signature you draw with your route. The city becomes the canvas. Nike+ becomes the proof that the route was actually run. Then the app visualises the path as graffiti, so the output feels like art rather than exercise data.

That flips the motivation model. Because the route becomes a visible mark, every kilometre contributes to something you can show, not just a number you log. You are not running to hit a number. You are running to create something worth showing. The real question is whether you can turn a fitness discipline into a culture-native act of self-expression.

In youth-facing, city-based campaigns, adoption often follows social signalling, not self-optimisation.

Why it lands with youngsters

This campaign taps into identity and visibility. Graffiti culture is about leaving a mark. Take Mokum lets people do that in a digital layer without vandalising anything. The “like” loop adds social reward. The route becomes content, not just a workout.

Extractable takeaway: If you want people to stick with effort, make the output look like identity and let the community reward it.

It also removes the seriousness that can make running feel like punishment. The challenge is playful. The accomplishment is shareable.

The intent: make Nike’s running promise felt, not claimed

The business intent is aligned with Nike’s broader mission to change running. Instead of telling young people that running is cool, the campaign makes running a means to do something else: create, compete for attention, and express style. The product story is embedded in the behaviour.

Behaviour-change work should treat data as validation and culture as the incentive.

The result, as described: young Amsterdam started running, and Nike’s mission to change running was actually experienced by youngsters.

What to steal from Take Mokum

Turn effort into an artefact. People stick with habits when the output feels worth keeping or sharing.
Let users design the challenge. The route is the creative input. That increases ownership.
Use data as validation, not as the headline. Nike+ proves the run. The graffiti is the reward.
Build a social loop. Sharing and liking are not add-ons. They are the motivation engine.
Match the culture. The campaign borrows from street expression rather than “fitness discipline”.

A few fast answers before you act

What is Nike Take Mokum?

It is a Facebook app that lets runners create digital graffiti on an Amsterdam map by running a route and uploading the kilometres through Nike+.

How does the app turn a run into graffiti?

The runner’s route becomes the “drawing”. After the Nike+ upload, the app visualises the path as a graffiti-like mark on the city map.

Why is this motivating compared to a normal running plan?

Because the reward is creative and social. You produce something you can share and get reactions to, not just a time and distance record.

What audience behaviour did this campaign aim to create?

To get young people running by making the activity feel playful, expressive, and socially visible, rather than structured and serious.

What is the key takeaway for behaviour-change campaigns?

Motivation improves when you convert effort into identity. Give people a way to express themselves, then let the community reinforce it.

Axe: Multiple Girlfriends App

Ogilvy Tunisia builds an Axe Facebook app around a simple social mechanic. Your relationship status update becomes the distribution layer. Here, “distribution layer” means the native profile surface where friends see and click the update.

The concept plays on the platform’s native behavior. When someone clicks the relationship update link, they are taken to the Axe Facebook app page, where they can install a custom “relationship” app that claims to let people be “in a relationship” with hundreds of girls at once.

Turning a status field into a clickable funnel

The mechanism is pure interface leverage. Instead of pushing people to an external landing page first, the campaign uses a built-in profile element that friends naturally notice and click. The click resolves to the app page. The app page drives install. The install creates more status updates.

This works because the status field is already a high-salience trigger, so the campaign borrows attention instead of trying to manufacture it.

Brands should build social activations on native UI triggers first, then layer messaging on top.

The real question is whether your mechanic can ride an existing click habit without feeling like bait.

In social-platform marketing, the strongest growth loops attach to native UI elements that already have curiosity baked in.

A growth loop is when each participant action creates the next participant’s trigger inside the same interface.

Why it lands

The hook is social proof and nosiness. People click relationship changes because they feel personal and consequential. Axe redirects that click impulse into an app install, without needing heavy explanation.

Extractable takeaway: If you want a social activation to spread inside a platform, do not start with content. Start with a native interaction people already perform, then let curiosity carry them into the campaign experience.

What the brand is really buying

This is less about the feature itself and more about attention routing. Axe uses a high-visibility profile surface to generate earned clicks, installs, and talk value. The “hundreds at once” claim is an exaggeration designed to provoke reactions, which becomes part of the sharing engine.

Steal the status-update funnel pattern

Anchor to a native behavior. Pick a platform action people already do daily, then build your mechanic on top of it.
Exploit curiosity ethically. Make the click payoff immediate so it feels like discovery, not bait.
Design the loop. Ensure the action produces an artifact that prompts the next click from someone else.
Keep the explanation minimal. If it needs a tutorial, the viral moment dies.

A few fast answers before you act

What is the Axe “Multiple Girlfriends App” concept?

It is a Facebook app activation that uses relationship status updates as the entry point. Clicking the status link takes people to the app page, where they can install a custom relationship app.

Why use relationship status as the trigger?

Because it is a high-attention profile signal. Friends notice it, click it, and discuss it, which creates a natural funnel without buying additional media.

What is the core viral mechanic?

A native UI element produces curiosity. Curiosity drives clicks. Clicks drive installs. Installs create more visible status artifacts that trigger the next wave of clicks.

What is the main risk with this pattern?

Platform dependency and tone. If the platform changes UI or policies, the mechanic can break. If the framing feels offensive rather than playful, the conversation can turn against the brand.

How do you reuse this pattern on other social platforms?

Keep the principle, not the feature. Start with a native surface people already click out of curiosity, then route that click into an experience that creates a new visible signal others can notice and act on.

A Non Smoking Generation: Ugly Models

A teenage girl applies to a glamorous new modelling agency called “U-Models”. She fills in her age, height, and other details, uploads a photo, and waits for the call-back.

Then the twist lands. “U-Models” is revealed as “Ugly Models”, and the campaign’s message is blunt: smoking doesn’t just damage you in the long run. It shows up on your face, sooner than you think.

A fake model search that weaponises the application form

The execution is built like a real talent hunt. Recruitment happens online, and the “application” is the product. Applicants are asked for basics like age and an uploaded photo. Smoking status is part of the form, too.

After the sign-ups, the campaign responds at scale. Applicants are told they are “too cute” for this agency because it is looking for “ugly models”. They are then shown a retouched version of their own photo that visualises how they might look after years of smoking.

How it turns a health warning into personal evidence

Most anti-smoking messages rely on abstract futures: disease, risk, statistics. This one drags the consequence into a mirror. It converts “smoking is harmful” into “this is what it can do to you”, using the viewer’s own face as proof, and using the modelling world as the attention hook.

In Scandinavian youth health communication, campaigns often have to compete with fashion and celebrity culture for attention.

The real question is how you make a long-term health risk feel socially immediate to a teenager.

Why it lands with the target group

The psychological move is simple: it swaps distant health outcomes for immediate social stakes. For teenagers, “identity now” usually beats “health later”. The campaign borrows the exact mechanics young audiences already understand. Casting calls, celebrity endorsement, online applications. Then it flips those mechanics into an uncomfortable reveal that is hard to unsee. That works because a personalised image collapses an abstract warning into an immediate identity threat.

Extractable takeaway: If your audience discounts long-term risk, translate the consequence into a near-term identity signal, and make the “proof” feel personally addressed rather than generally broadcast.

The intent, and the ethical edge you can’t ignore

This is a deliberately provocative form of social marketing. It uses deception, and it leans on appearance anxiety to get attention. That friction is part of the spread. People talk about it because it feels shocking, and because it breaks the usual public-service tone.

The pattern is effective, but it should only be used where the public-good case is strong and the safeguards are explicit. If you borrow the pattern, borrow it with care. The line between “wake-up call” and “harmful shaming” is thin, especially when the audience is young. The execution works because it is sharp, but it also raises real questions about consent, data handling, and emotional impact.

What to steal for your next behavior-change idea

Use a familiar cultural container. Here it is modelling and celebrity culture. Pick a container your audience already pays attention to.
Make the interaction do the persuasion. The form, the upload, and the response are the message. Not the headline.
Deliver a personalised “receipt”. The retouched photo turns a general warning into concrete evidence.
Design the reveal as the share trigger. The moment of “wait, this isn’t what I thought” is the social fuel.

A few fast answers before you act

What is “Ugly Models” in this context?

It is an anti-smoking campaign framed as a modelling recruitment drive called “U-Models”, later revealed as “Ugly Models”, designed to warn teenagers about the visible impact smoking can have on appearance.

How does the campaign mechanism work?

Teenagers apply online to a supposed model agency and upload a photo. The campaign then responds with a reveal message and a retouched version of the applicant’s own photo that visualises the effects of smoking over time.

Why is the personalised photo so powerful?

Because it turns a general warning into something that feels directly attached to the viewer’s own identity. The consequence stops being abstract and starts feeling immediate, visible, and personal.

Why focus on appearance instead of health consequences?

The idea is that long-term health warnings are often ignored by teenagers, while near-term identity and appearance cues are harder to dismiss. The campaign makes the risk feel immediate and personal.

What’s the main risk in copying this approach?

The tactic uses deception and can slide into shaming. If the audience is young, you need extra care around consent, safeguarding, and avoiding harm while still delivering a clear public-good message.