I guess I should give a warning that the following video shows a bunch of cartoon-jelly-bean-people dying in a variety of ways, but I think it’s hard to think of it as dark as it should seem when the little guys follow their demises with a lighthearted dance to upbeat music.

I find it difficult to discuss the notion that an organization is engaging in “viral marketing” unless they have already shown they have the capacity to do so by making a campaign viral – and Metro Trains (a railway network in Melbourne, Australia) has definitely done that. Last week, visitors of the YouTube charts were treated to the clever black comedy music video above, “Dumb Ways to Die”. The video is about exactly what the title suggests; a series of really stupid ways to die (ex: using a clothes dryer as a hiding place, sell both your kidneys on the internet, pressing big red buttons).

Before you know it, the video is talking about the last and “dumbest” ways to die – stand on the edge of a train station platform, drive around the gates at a railway crossing, running across the tracks. You probably don’t realize until the music fades that you’ve just finished watching a rail safety message, one that effectively communicates that being stupid around trains is just as idiotic as eating a tube of super glue, among other things. “The aim of this campaign is to engage an audience that really doesn’t want to hear any kind of safety message,” said the executive director of the marketing firm behind the video, McCann. So, quite brilliantly, they found a way to get their attention through creating a charming piece of  web content with enough entertainment value that viewers would spread it for them.

I think the biggest takeaway from this is that perhaps “viral marketing” isn’t about making a message viral, but attaching a message to a whole new product (high-quality web content that will go viral). At the time I’m writing this, the video has over 27 million views; it also reached as high as #6 on the global iTunes charts.  Why? I would think it’s because people love this music video and song, not because they love hearing about rail safety.

This post is in response to Tamar’s request for blog posts on marketing ethics (more specifically on the ethics of public relations).

As someone who transferred from Sociology to Commerce with the intention of using business skills to find more opportunities to make a positive social change, it’s a bit disheartening when I find indications that private business often simply view corporate social responsibility as a function of improving public relations.  Articles like this one that talk about how CSR is stalling discuss it largely in terms of how to make it a better investment for companies, while maneuvering around the idea of improving social outcomes because they’re not as quantifiable. It’s also mentioned that businesses view CSR as a risk because while it ‘s good for PR, it’s likely to be met with scrutiny from stakeholders. But if a company is going to market itself on the basis it engages in CSR to accomplish some socially responsible mission, then shouldn’t that be their goal instead of making sure everyone know about their deeds? Isn’t that a lie otherwise, and therefore unethical?

I understand the businesses have a responsibility to more stakeholders than just society as a whole – their employees, their shareholders, their clients – which means that it is important to maintain a healthy bottom line. But I struggle with the idea that it’s necessary for every one of a company’s actions to be calculated with the sole purpose of improving long-run profits. Can’t a business implement a CSR initiative that has nothing to do with PR, has no positive impact on profits, but still benefits all of their stakeholders? As someone who works for and is a member of a non-profit organization, I know firsthand that there is a huge benefit to knowing you’re a part of something that is about more than profit, even if it comes at the expense of some of your potential income. If there is a middle-ground between private organizations that care only about maximizing profit and nonprofits that just want to benefit society, it doesn’t seem to be very visible.

I hope this doesn’t come off as naive, but this is my big question: Generally speaking, do businesses only do good for the sake of PR?

This is a response to Nil’s blog post, “Google, stop following me.” Specifically, a comment she had towards the end about online advertisements that are based on other websites you’ve visited with your IP address:

“I should not be consciously noticing these ads, not realizing exactly how and why they are being targeted at me, and definitely not looking upon them with distaste. In the past 24 hours I have seen this company appear on the websites I visit  more times then I can count, but my perception of this brand is not a positive one.”

When a company blatantly pulls my Google history to sell me batteries after I searched what I need to power a wireless mouse, I don’t feel the urge to buy their brand either. Sure, their timing might be great, as they know that I’m already beyond need recognition and I‘m engaging in an external search for information on their product. But for me, when I can clearly see the reasoning behind why an advertisement is in front of me, I stop thinking of the advertisement as just another advertisement and I start thinking about how I am  part of a strategy to improve a bottom line.

I’m well aware that’s the intention behind most advertisements. And to be honest, while there are a lot of privacy issues on the web I’m very vocal about, I don’t care that much if I’m advertised to based on my web history as long as my identity remains private. However, isn’t it bad CRM if an advertisement is actively making me think more about the company’s intentions than it is their product?

If MasterCard puts an ad on a TV channel I frequent, I watch it and think about the benefits using their credit card (if I think about it at all). If MasterCard sets up a tent on campus during the first week of school, I think about how they’re trying to take advantage of naive students who are just starting to gain financial independence from their parents. I know targeting is taking place in both these scenarios, but it seems to me that a failure to be subtle could have pretty damaging affects on a company’s brand image.

“We want to go VIRAL with this video but without infecting other people’s computers. Can you please do it ASAP? Thx.”

– An employer’s not-so-realistic demand for a web designer, as seen on ClientsFromHell.

I spent a long time writing a blog post of epic proportions on how articles like “Six Simple Steps to Viral Marketing” and “The Viral Marketing Cheat Sheet” drive me insane before realizing that all I need to say is this: you don’t need to be a “viral marketing expert” to realize web content goes viral because it offers something new or different, not because it followed some set procedure.

A lot of these go-viral-in-just-5-easy-steps type articles seem to focus on reaching the audiences of social media users with high “social networking potential”, which seems like a fair enough tip, but why the focus on convincing them to talk about your product when you could just collaborate with them directly? As it turns out, even web content creators with huge audiences don’t cost as much to work with as Brad Pitt (maybe someone should have told Chanel that before they spent $7 million on this). Here are a couple of companies that I think have managed to do that.

Lonely Planet with Natalie Tran (communitychannel on YouTube)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_348851&feature=iv&src_vid=gXWXiRB838I&v=GKr7-S6eDXY

When the world’s largest travel guide book wanted to reach a younger audience, they sent the most subscribed-to Australian YouTuber, Natalie Tran, around the world. Sure, sending someone around the world isn’t cheap, but they gained access to Tran’s 1,000,000+ subscribers. Additionally, they didn’t to worry about any of the creative work as it was all in the hands of someone who has over 150 YouTube videos with over a million views (going up to 34 million views) at little to no production cost. It makes me think a bit about how come more marketers aren’t working with these people. It mostly just makes me jealous that Tran got paid to travel around the world, though.

King of the Web

King of the Web is arguably past its prime, but the attention it gathered when it was big was dumbfounding. KotW held contests where online content creators (mostly YouTubers) could compete with each other for prizes of $10,000 (this has since decreased). The content creators, a lot of whom were campaigning for votes so that they could donate the prize money to charity, brought approximately 25,000,000 subscribers worldwide to visit and vote on KotW’s site (which monetized by charging users who really wanted their favourite creator to win for “voting bonuses”). KotW didn’t turn out to be very sustainable, but it certainly made a point about the power of motivating content creators.

I can think of quite a few other examples (Netflix with Philip DeFranco, indie gaming companies like Mojang with “let’s play-ers”, and the YouTube Partnership program as a whole), but for brevity’s sake, I’ll pass on discussing them in depth. If anyone happens by this post and can think of any others, however, I’d love to hear about them.

After being turned down repeatedly for parts because she didn’t fit Hollywood’s image of what a female character should be, actress and prosumer Felicia Day created a practically no-budget web series (“The Guild”) about her own experiences as a geek. The series is now entering it’s 6th season, has reached a huge audience, and won countless awards while Day now runs a network of popular web shows.

If you gave me the opportunity to, I could gush to you forever about the papers I’ve written on the sociology of the internet –I get excited talking about the huge influence of online public spheres and the virality of social movements and attitude. But for brevity’s sake, I’ll limit my enthusiasm to one of my favourite concepts that is easily relatable to marketing: the Web 2.0 “prosumer”.

In short, we’re a long way into the era of “Web 2.0”, where web users no longer act simply as consumers of web content but producer-consumers (“prosumers”) that generate their own content for each other and with each other, including everything from blog posts and Facebook photos to web shows and software. Anyone could potentially reach a huge audience with their ideas, and the impact is awesome. If I want to watch a comedy about a bunch of socially awkward gamers and another internet user wants to produce that, it doesn’t matter that some network executive doesn’t think there’s a market for it on television; they can bring it to a web audience. A brilliant idea for a product doesn’t necessarily depend on the interest of venture capitalists anymore; thanks to crowd funding websites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, innovators can go straight to interested consumers to finance their creations. The more power prosumers have to bring their ideas and content to a large audience, the less unnecessary filters there are on creativity and innovation.

And as I learn about marketing concepts in COMM 296, I constantly find myself considering the implications of prosumer-power on marketing practices and vice versa. How can marketers learn from famous prosumers (Felicia Day, Philip DeFranco, etc.) who have mastered viral marketing? How do prosumers, often with no marketing training, communicate their contents’ value as worth web users’ time? And how do marketers decide which prosumers to partner with to reach their target market?

I know I’m all-questions-no-answers on this, but I think it’s worth marketing students’ time to consider how marketing might change by the time we hit the field.

Please note: The “prosumers” that I’m referring to are not to be confused with the alternate definition of “professional-consumers”. When discussing content creation on the web, the term usually refers to “producer-consumers” rather than the aforementioned marketing segment.