AI video · Case study

Pit Viper × DEPT: from a brand problem to an AI ad campaign

An eyewear brand needed a younger audience and had four weeks to launch. An official case film, an unchosen concept, the production method and media results are public; a standalone complete ad and financial ledger have not been verified.

Published · Reviewed

Watch DEPT's approximately 93-second case film with campaign footage and production context; it is not a standalone complete 30-second ad.Poster source: DEPT® official YouTube channel; linked from Google's case study · Watch original film
Campaign performance · agency-reported10.3 million reached and $2.94 CPM (DEPT-reported)

DEPT describes four weeks; Google's 2025 case places the same 10.3 million in the first four days. No dashboard is public to reconcile the windows. Reach and CPM do not establish sales or agency profit.

Check this result

The economics here are not views converted directly into creator income. Facing declining sales, Pit Viper wanted advertising that could attract younger customers; DEPT conceived, produced and distributed a campaign for the client. DEPT and Google's accounts provide a case film, creative decisions and media measures, enough to examine the brief and what those figures cannot establish about earnings.

01

Verified material

Start with the case film: what kind of ad is this?

DEPT's official case film includes campaign footage; its case page also has a six-second excerpt and transcript.

DEPT calls the campaign “Redefine Performance.” Its approximately 93-second official case film combines ad footage and production context. The agency case page separately offers an approximately six-second excerpt and transcript of a character joking about “low performance.” View those materials before judging the brand's absurd humour. The case film is not a standalone complete 30-second ad or every distributed cut.

Google links to the case film, and DEPT's page includes a creative still. They establish visible character and brand tone, but not per-shot prompts, generation counts or the length of each distributed ad.

Sources for this section: DEPT® official channel: Pit Viper case film · DEPT®: Pit Viper “Redefine Performance” case study · Think with Google: DEPT and Pit Viper production interview · Campaign excerpt served by DEPT®

02

Public account

Why the client commissioned it: falling sales, younger viewers and four weeks

The brand had loyal fans but lacked creative that would introduce it to new viewers.

In DEPT's own account, Pit Viper had loyal fans but declining sales. It wanted to reach a younger generation and lacked awareness creative. The brief was to introduce its unusual, durable eyewear to people unfamiliar with the brand, rather than to demonstrate a model.

The launch window was four weeks. The agency also needed to show the product beyond its usual extreme-sport setting without losing Pit Viper's exaggerated humour. A comparable client brief should define the audience, product claim, tone, deadline and measurable distribution goal before choosing a video tool or allocating revision time.

Sources for this section: DEPT®: Pit Viper “Redefine Performance” case study · Think with Google: DEPT and Pit Viper production interview

03

Public account

Meat Man did not lead: a visible creative decision

Gemini supported rapid exploration; one of the team's favourite ideas was still not selected.

DEPT says it developed a concept and script, then used Gemini for proofs of concept to see what failed, what might work and what fit. Its case page shows Meat Man, a sunglass-wearing snowboarder made of meat. Google's interview clarifies that Meat Man's story was not the main route, although the character briefly appeared as a backup dancer in the final cut. The selected storyline centred on a windbreaker-clad protagonist facing “low performance.”

See the concept image on DEPT's page, then compare it with the selected storyline in the case film. It shows a creative decision, not a bad-prompt/good-prompt comparison of one shot. Neither official account publishes original prompts, every revision or rejected renders. The useful practice is to assess alternatives against the client brief and record why even a strong idea did not become the main route.

Sources for this section: DEPT®: Pit Viper “Redefine Performance” case study · Think with Google: DEPT and Pit Viper production interview · DEPT® official channel: Pit Viper case film

04

Public account

From concept to shots: what Veo 2 did

The team described generation in production terms while people retained the creative and editorial decisions.

DEPT says it used Google Labs' Veo 2 to turn the selected concept into video. The team structured prompts around lighting, camera angle, set detail, mood and subject, then refined the generated scenes. The agency says the video production stage took hours; that claim does not include the client brief, concept selection, scripting, review, distribution or settlement.

Google's production interview adds a useful counterexample: detail generally helped, but too much could muddle the instructions. The official accounts describe prompt categories, not a verbatim prompt, all candidate renders or the final edit list for a shot. A reader can brief a test through subject, action, setting, camera, lighting and mood, and log what helped or conflicted. That is an adaptation, not DEPT's unpublished prompt.

Sources for this section: DEPT®: Pit Viper “Redefine Performance” case study · Think with Google: DEPT and Pit Viper production interview

05

Public account

How the ad reached people: reach, completion and visits

These measures come from the agency's account and answer different questions.

DEPT says the campaign launched before the Super Bowl, used YouTube's AI-assisted media tools to find viewers and ran video on Meta. It reports $2.94 CPM, a 92% Meta video completion rate, 6.5% ad-recall lift among 18-to-24-year-olds and a 19% increase in Google Analytics sessions after launch. DEPT places the 10.3 million reach in a four-week window; Google's March 2025 case places the same number in the first four days. Neither provides a dashboard that reconciles the time windows.

Reach measures exposure, completion describes viewing on a platform and sessions indicate site visits; none directly proves purchases. Read each metric against the client brief—awareness among younger viewers and a reason to explore the brand—rather than treating views alone as the business result.

Sources for this section: DEPT®: Pit Viper “Redefine Performance” case study · Think with Google: DEPT and Pit Viper production interview

06

Our analysis

Where the economic value sits: a larger budget and missing revenue figures

DEPT reports a 69% budget increase after early results; that still cannot establish client return or agency profit.

DEPT says ad recall rose 3.8% after four days and early results unlocked a 69% increase in campaign budget. That is a concrete decision to invest further, but extra budget is spending, not revenue created by the film. The case does not disclose Pit Viper orders, margins, total ad spend, the agency contract, asset licensing costs or DEPT's net profit.

For a would-be commercial-video maker, the reusable sequence is to define the client's problem and audience, propose comparable concepts, test and reject ideas with reasons, deliver versions, then review media measures alongside the client's sales data. Viability depends on fees actually paid, production and revision cost, media spend, rights and payment timing; this campaign's reach is not a price list or an earnings forecast.

Sources for this section: DEPT®: Pit Viper “Redefine Performance” case study · Think with Google: DEPT and Pit Viper production interview

Sources and limits

Where the material comes from