Burger King's Subservient Chicken is a benchmark for brilliant promotions.

If, by now, you haven’t visited SubervientChicken.com, you probably should slap yourself on the wrist (a command which the chicken in question responds to fairly strangely, I might add).

This viral (but not salmonella-like) success story has been making its rounds pretty prolifically of late, from the hallowed pages of The Wall Street Journal to the underground message boards of a plethora of enthusiastic consumers.

I was quoted in the very Journal, together with the Oakland Tribune, and I tell you this, not to pat myself on the back (again, a command the chicken performs with deft ease), but because of the irony whence I come. Those that know me are well aware that I began my career on the client-side, working in the marketing department of a dynamic fast-food (actually quick-service restaurant) chicken company called Nando’s Chickenland. When I started with this company, there were 20-odd stores in South Africa, and when I left some five years later, there were close to 350 worldwide.

I describe Nando’s as Starbucks meets Taco Bell -- a premium-priced experiential brand with highly-irreverent and even controversial advertising. In truth, it’s probably a fair comparison to Starbucks -- almost uncanny how you could substitute coffee for chicken and basically be looking at the same success story. On the flipside, however, Nando’s advertising put Taco Bell to shame -- and it sold product, which will be elaborated on shortly.

Almost every advertising campaign -- on a shoestring budget -- was banned at some point in time. And the moral of the story was that Nando’s received multiples of free publicity for every Rand it spent on paid media.

I’m digressing slightly, but the main point of this prelude is that I know chicken -- so listen up, as I’m qualified to discuss all things fowl and double-breasted.

I’ve been intrigued at the media coverage of this campaign -- both in the mainstream papers, as well as in the trade circles. The one question that seems to be continuously asked is, "But did it sell chicken?"

This is completely the wrong question to be asking. Perhaps a more appropriate question you should be asking is, "Does Burger King sell chicken?" (hint: think BURGER King). The answer is an emphatic "yes" -- and if you didn’t know it before, you certainly do now.

Subservient Chicken is cocky, to be sure, but without question a smart and strategic campaign. It almost single-handedly put BK in the news for all the right reasons, when it seemed the only news that was worthy for this flailing brand was bad news -- at a time when the only flame-grilled item on the menu was the company itself.

And now millions of consumers -- especially younger ones who might previously have not cared a damn about the brand -- have interacted, played with and challenged a rather frisky rooster. Many people don’t know this, but the man in the suit is actually Richard Hatch (I’m kidding, but I couldn’t resist).

Incidentally, total hits as per CP+B thru April 21st were 142,996,967, whereas average session length was 7:17 minutes (that’s 7.3 x 30-second commercials for anyone keeping score).

When you pay a visit to some of the Chicken's  fan sites you might immediately reach the conclusion that there are people out there with way too much time on their hands. But when you think about the kind of commitment it takes to display an exhaustive list of commands the chicken will and won’t do, not to mention the possibility that the same folks have both disposable income and curiosity (and are fairly likely to be the target audience), are you perhaps willing to rethink your perspective on whether this was a successful exercise?

To even hint at whether product was sold as a direct result of this campaign is essentially short-sighted and displays an acute lack of understanding as to how advertising and branding works -- at least when done right.

Secondly, to hold one component of a larger program/plan accountable relative to various other touchpoints or forces simultaneously in operation is -- you guessed it -- no different to holding the Web to a higher standard relative to the other forms of paid media. Furthermore, to even attempt to do this ignores the symbiotic and synergistic impact of the interrelation of these input variables. Dare I say the word "integration?"

Thirdly, what if -- and this is an out-there thought (sarcasm intended) -- the primary goal of the program was not to sell chicken at all. Granted, a by product of any successful effort surely will translate into sales; however, when one begins to put a price tag on the impact of the free publicity and the message sent out to the investment community, press, channel and consumer base (past, present, future), doesn’t the value transcend short-term sales into the MasterCard (read: priceless) zone?

The right kind of questions to be asking would be along the lines of: "Did this bring people closer to the brand?" Or the corollary: "Did this move the right kind of people further away from the brand?" And if the answers are "yes" and "no," respectively, then this chicken is surely no featherbrain.

With all that said, my gauge of efficacy for this output will be measured by the extent to which BK integrates the concept and creative approach into its ongoing communications. The ability to support this through multiple means and to amplify the impact, maintain and even accelerate the momentum -- in other words, the degree to which BK is able to give this campaign legs -- will ultimately determine whether this was a one-hit-wonder or the makings of an idea with staying power. And knowing the folks over at CP+B, I’m betting on the latter.