Remember when we were all so impressed by the campaigns who had websites and used words like 'conversation' and used familiar tools like YouTube and Twitter?
Well a conversation requires two way communication guys. I emailed the Barack Obama campaign about something and I have received no reply. Not only that - I started getting spammed email from their mailing list. I never asked to be subscribed to their mailing list?
I have heard the same happen to others.
Is this a conversation or yet another cynical way to appeal to a constituency without really trying?
A conversation requires two parties - one listens, one replies, then they swap.
Ad agencies are spending a lot of time and creative juices trying to manufacture stuff that people should 'Pay Attention' to each time having mixed results. They are seeding blogs, commenting, creating content and faking YouTube stats all in an effort to get noticed.
From the article:
"The move to bring a measure of predictability to the still-unpredictable world of viral marketing is being driven by clients trying to balance the risks inherent in a new marketing medium with the need to prove return on investment, said agency executives."
Some campaigns work - like the one below:
But many don't. While the video above got millions of impressions (and is still going - even getting linked on Blogs dedicated to the subject of Attention!) other videos that would (on paper) be expected to get a lot of attention don't.
"Then there's the seven-minute film by Leaving Las Vegas director Mike Figgis of Kate Moss in her underwear for Agent Provocateur, a lingerie maker that had what would appear to be the recipe for a viral sensation. But it was viewed fewer than 75,000 times in the three months after it was uploaded last September."
There is a fight going on out there. To win hearts and minds. And I am not talking about the War on Terror.
Actually what they are really fighting for is Attention. Once they have that - its yet another battle to actually convert Attention into Engagement.
In the mean time. I am having a very hard time uploading a screen-cast of Touchstone in action. Google Video and YouTube seem to compress the heck out of it so you can't read the screen! This should be easier.
I just read an interesting blog from Scott Karp at Publishing 2.0, about the recent YouTube polls, partially regarding potential cost to users should YouTube introduce ads at the start of each video.
Needless to say that it doesnt bode well for YouTube if they did this. I too wouldn't be too happy about it and am a self-confessed media junkie. But is this just the cost of doing business? Can we not come up with more creative ways of monetizing video?
What about this; Incremental random ads where volume of advertising is tied to popularity of a piece of content. So, the less popular videos will have no ads and then randomly show ads with increasingly frequency as the views/popularity increases.
This is on the assumption that people might be more inclined to accept ads for the more popular (and thus theoretically more interesting) videos.
Just my thoughts. I wonder if there is any other compromise?