There’s been a whole lot written about why calling an online video “viral” doesn’t make it such–Scott Monty did an excellent take on it a few weeks back. But what I wanted to point out here is that those videos that do go “viral” often aren’t what the ad industry’s narrow aesthetic would define as “good.”
Or to put it another way, as a former boss of mine told me when I was first starting out: “There’s a reason America’s Funniest Home Videos is a top 10 show.”
Hence the proliferation of shocked rodents, sneezing ursines, adorable human babies and other lowbrow highlights. And that really clever ad-like video that shows off your product? Well, chances are, no one’s going to want to pass it along. Why? Because while it’s a really clever product demonstration and all– no one cares.
It’s the whole Prom King Brand thing. People don’t really want to hear from low interest brands unless someone’s screaming bloody murder (e.g. Whopper Freakout) or cute animals are doing something extra adorable. I mean they’ll watch it if it’s dropped in front of them during a TV show, but only ad geeks are going to be passing on a really clever Wisk laundry detergent demo to their friends. Even if it’s shot on a hand held camera and features funny audience reaction shots.
Caveat emptor.
This is a bit of a tangential comment, perhaps, but I’ll add it anyway. Your post reminded me of something Lewis Green twittered from Seth Godin’s blog a few weeks ago.
Quoting from Seth:
“One difference between creating something you believe in and creating something that’s popular is that popularity seekers follow established steps. Do this, do that, do the other thing… lots of traffic. Do this, do that, do the other thing, a quick boost in Google. DT, DT DTOT and get a standing ovation…
“The problem with this, that and the other thing is that you end up with a career filled with it. Instead of creating long-lasting art, ideas that matter and things that spread organically, you end up with a bunch of calculated mini-hits.”
Read Seth’s full post here:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/07/12-ways-to-get.html
The philosophy applies in lots of different areas of life, of course. In my mind, it’s definitely worth remembering!
Let me follow Ann’s comment: to me it is the difference between being strategic and being tactic.
Creating something you believe in is a path that must follow a strategy.
Following the mainstream with mini hits just to make your day is tactic.
@Toad: I totally agree on the fact that adv agencies aesthetics is gonna failing when it comes about being viral. But for every single successful viral video, there are 100th crap videos which will damage the pretending brands.
Being viral should be part of an overall strategy, different from the ones we are used to, maybe.
Are the existing ad agencies able to match this goal? Do not think so. Are the existing web agencies able to deliver a sound communication strategy? Still, I’m doubtful.
Well, I was going to comment but Ann pretty much covered what I had to say. Thanks for starting the discussion, Alan.
Hold the presses. David Meerman Scott offers sage advice in this area. Catch his presentation, if you can.
Entertaining viral videos do in-fact create awareness of a product and can make it a household name (i.e. brand awareness). Becoming a household name is what every brand aspires to be. In some cases a company will approach an internet success afterwards (For example the Chocolate Rain guy who went on to do a Dr Pepper Commercial). If people start talking about a video they saw as a conversation piece and a massive amount of views are registered with that video — well that is interactive participation at work …. where a consumer is actively engaging the commercial rather than the old fashion method where the media targets the consumer. We are at the beginning of a new era in marketing.
@ Ann- Seth’s piece is interesting- thanks for pointing it out. It’s always easiest to go the way everyone else has, and sadly, most marketing departments are set up to do just that: No one gets fired for doing what their competitor just did.
But risk isn’t rewarded, so most figure “what’s the point?”
@gianandrea – strategic vs tactic is a great way to frame it. I will have to remember that one. Grazie.
@lewis- where/how would I find David Meerman Scott (I mean other than Google) – is there something specific of his I should look for first?
@levon- Your point here seems to be that agencies are actually adapting to what becomes popular online (e.g. Chocolate Rain, which is definitely not something that would pass an agency creative department or (especially) a client.) My impression is that they do this grudgingly, as in “okay, so long as you people like this crap, we might as well stick our name on it.” It’s still tough for them to wrap their head around the new aesthetic.
Thanks all for your comments.
“Strategy first, then tactics” is an all too-often forgotten approach to marketing communications. David M. Scott has good points in his “New Rules of Marketing & PR” (although many of the Rules aren’t new).
Doing the work at discovering how you can be different than, rather than mimic competitors, is also too often missed. Jack Trout’s revised “Differentiate or Die” provides great evidence and guidance on being Distinct or Extinct.
I think “Target first, Strategy second, tactics third, then a weapon” You need to have an impact that they will remember. and the right weapon will do the job.
Yeah, right on TToad. I find normal TV ads boring.
Here is a spoof on the making of such an ad from “Lost in Translation”
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=whisky+ad&hl=en&emb=0#q=whisky%20ad&hl=en&emb=0&start=30
Here is the kind of ad that might get me to consider your whisky:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=whisky+ad&hl=en&emb=0#q=whisky%20tasting&hl=en&emb=0
oops, wrong link on the “Lost in Translation” whisky ad production spoof. Here is the ad I intended to link to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn5QDu4Q688
Shoot, and I my second ad link in my original post links to a Sean Connery whisky ad, too. How strange. I should stay with You Tube and not try to use Google Video. Strange that all roads lead to Sean Connery in my original attempt.
Anyway, here is the “good” ad that might get me to try your whisky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDbce6ZM2oU