BitShovel
中

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

BitShovel typographic cover with an eyewear motif for the Pit Viper and DEPT case; not campaign footage.Open the creator’s player
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: BitShovel editorial artwork; not a frame from the ad · Poster source · 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
Read the context and editorial assessment

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.

Follow the projectContents7
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

A BitShovel exercise · not the maker’s tutorial

Build a small ad test from a client brief

BitShovel designed this bounded trial from the public brief, unchosen concept and campaign account. It is a delivery exercise for client work, not DEPT's prompt or contract process. Without a real client, use a product you may show and label the result a mock pitch.

Before you begin

  • Use product imagery, marks and factual claims the client or owner permits, and identify who can approve concept, claims, film and media spend. A mock pitch still needs authorised assets.
  • Agree on one audience, one measurable communication goal, aspect ratio, deadline and revision and test budget. A real media buy needs separate client approval.

  1. Turn the business problem into a reviewable brief

    Confirm the product's factual benefit, who does not know it, the intended audience action and any prohibited claim or image. Turn a wish such as reaching younger people into one question this sample can test: can an unfamiliar viewer explain the product use?

    Keep
    A one-page brief confirmed by the client or owner: facts, audience, goal, limits, approver and deadline.
    Check
    Is each claim supported? Does the goal concern awareness, visits or purchases, with a separate measure for each? Do not generate before the brief is confirmed.

  2. Make ideas compete against the brief

    Write two or three concepts. For each, state the comic turn or conflict, how the product enters, and make one original concept still. As with this case's Meat Man and chosen storyline, record when an eye-catching idea obscures the product or misses the audience.

    Keep
    Two or three concept cards, a reason for selecting one and reasons for rejecting the others; retain client approval for real work.
    Check
    Would the viewer understand the product role without relying on the brand name? If they remember only the strange character, revise the concept.

  3. Test one shot before promising a whole film

    Brief one 6–12-second shot for the selected concept, separating subject, visible action, setting, camera, light and mood. Make no more than two versions with authorised assets. Save inputs, outputs, spend and rejection reasons; remove conflicting instructions instead of adding more words.

    Keep
    One shot sample and a log of no more than two versions.
    Check
    Check product shape, marks, cast, action and any unintended performance claim frame by frame. If wrong, return to stills or brief; polished imagery does not establish factual accuracy.

  4. Review a short cut and define revision limits

    Edit usable footage into a short cut with its target format, sound, captions, known generation defects and asset sources. Ask the approver to mark must change, acceptable and do not publish; retain versions and sign-off.

    Keep
    A review cut, issue list, revised cut and approval record.
    Check
    Is the approved claim legible on a phone? Are caption, music and likeness rights clear? Pause delivery or renegotiate if approval is missing or revisions exceed scope.

  5. Review distribution and the job's actual accounts

    Only after client media approval, run a small test. Record channel, dates, spend, reach, completion and site visits separately; ask the client to review orders for the same period. Keep a separate project ledger for agreed fee, tools, labour, revisions, invoice and cash receipt dates.

    Keep
    A source-backed media readout and project ledger; for a mock pitch, record only sample feedback, not client performance.
    Check
    Are reach, site visits, purchases and agency cash receipts separate? Without comparable sales or payment records, do not claim ROAS, profit or orders caused by the film.

Make one final choice: Stop if the brief, claims or rights are unresolved. Revise a concept that attracts attention without conveying the product. Expand cuts only after a sound shot and client approval. The client decides further media spend; the maker evaluates the job using its own agreement and cash received.

This is a BitShovel exercise, not DEPT's production file. DEPT's reported reach, completion and budget increase describe that campaign's media and decisions, not incremental client sales or the agency's fee, receipts or profit.

Compare how ad creative can vary

See how an existing ad can become versions for different markets, then compare this project's route from brief to concept selection. Higgsfield is a separate product story, not a confirmed tool in this campaign.

Sources and limits

Where the material comes from