Tracking the Giants of Viral Video: New Data Insights

I appreciate Ad Age for putting much-needed structure behind the editorial study and analysis of non-broadcast video. It's a great platform and a good addition to the arsenal of messaging vehicles.

But, this interview sparked two things I submit for your consideration/comment...

1) Abbey, you refer to the mass volume of online video that is currently being posted as a "tsunami of random video clutter" getting in the way of a brand's viral video being noticed. Granted, all of us surfing "Ad Age" pages is likely to believe advertising is of inherent interest and value, but have we really reached the tipping point where the ad has become more important than the content surrounding it??? Perhaps too literal a critique, but it evidences a larger issue in our industry: too many of us think advertising in any and every possible form is actually a good thing. Advertising on every flat surface, on every digital screen, surrounding every street corner, inside every packaged product... THIS is the clutter. And the lack of organic context in which marketing messages are crammed into every available space only serves to alienate the consumer, waste the client's dollar, reduce ROI and devalue advertising in general. YouTube MIGHT be a good ad vehicle because that "tsunami" of content has drawn millions of consumers to view it. This is the context under which we must endeavor to understand if/how non-broadcast video platforms can best be used to support brands.

2) Is it "viral" if you have to promote it? In the old days (of television) we used to avoid "promoting the promotion." Integrated promotions with on-air time devoted to sponsor association brought revenue, but they diminished the network's ability to promote tune-in. Double-edged sword. From an integrated marketing perspective, it absolutely makes sense to dovetail all relevant vehicles - publicity, paid media, event marketing, internet video campaigns, etc. - and integrate messaging in order to drive the highest value and ROI for the brand. Research proves that this works and we've all done it for years. But in this interview, Matt responds to the question of how to make a video go viral by offering "an initial burst" of marketing and publicity for the video followed by "sustained media" support. Well, isn't that promoting the promotion? And in this case, if a good chunk of your media is invested in getting people to the video, then your losing brand messaging opportunity and the so-called "viral" video isn't doing its job.

Stu Ballatt

About Stu's comment... "too many of us think advertising in any and every possible form is actually a good thing. Advertising on every flat surface, on every digital screen...."

Great point to bring up. Almost wish there were a regular Ad Age column open to any contributor that explored the negatives of a mindset that looks at all space as potential marketing territory. Not in a nagging way, but in some way that honors how humans can simultaneously totally embrace consumerism at moments and then totally reject it at others. Without being cynical.

PBS has been a pretty good platform for certain brands (especially personal brands) without overdoing the intrusion. Sponsored radio seems a relic from the past but for ten years Curtis Sliwa and Ron Kuby did hilariously entertaining right-wing vs left-wing advertising on everything from Kodak to more local-based NYC brands. PBS' high toned Mobile ads (or hours long Suze Orman and Wayne Dwyer shows) are very different than the Big Apple guttural verbiage from Curtis and Kuby. Each served their context. If I read you right, Stu, the brighter future for YouTube is not necessarily pre- or post-roll, but rather more contextually relevant sponsorships, whatever form they take.

If YouTube can sport a channel for Ethicon Endo-Surgery http://adage.com/article?article_id=137726), then certainly within the stretch of its user generated content - from sentimental greetings between lovers to all the wild feats of kids challenging mortality - can attract any number of brands. How? Maybe the solution is what Apple did with iphone apps. Only here Apple would would be YouTube in conjunction with specific user-producers opening bids for brands to play a role, not always with dollars but by their own ways to help everyone grow the audience conversation and pollinate new brands.

But what about providing a forum for consumers to share their experiences with a brand? This isn't sponsored advertising, yet it has the potential to increase brand awareness and advocacy. And, after all, word-of-mouth personal recommendations can be the most influential factor in a consumer's purchase decisions.

This clip details the process by which social media can aid in this process:

http://bit.ly/szW0U

Good comment Stu.

Now, regarding what makes a video viral? It's good--it's entertaining. Hyperanalyze it, bring in the MBA's and psychologists to do studies. Or hire a couple teenagers to tell you whether it would be fun.

This interview seemed to be about viral video for the sake of viral video. "Hey look, our video got 10 million views!", congratulations! Now what?

I would like to see what effect millions of views had on sales, brand awareness, or how the attitudes of the viral video viewers changed for the better or (OH NO!)for the worst. This is Advertising Age and I thought the goal of advertising, albeit changing, was to sell things to people. Maybe I need to see the next interview in the series.