Yes, YouTube can also be used by companies
The video below is the result of Barclay's running a competition - where people can send in videos of waterslides - and win stuff.
Is this one legit or staged (ie professionally produced by Barclays)? Hard to say.
I like the creativity here. Young people like to make videos. They like to make stuff.
So, Barclays is channeling that - and hopefully the end result (a video) - will be compelling enough that people will watch it, and forward on to their friends.
So, rather than Barclays trying to spend a bunch a money trying to guess what will be a good "viral" ad - they simply host a competition and let Darwinian Survival of the Fittest (or funniest) reign. And they save money in the process.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Mystery #1: "Free Hugs" - Solved
One day when I was walking down the street in downtown Waikiki (back when I lived in Hawaii), I was approached by a couple young women offering "Free Hugs". As a skeptical person, initially I declined (assuming they were missionaries, or some type of cult). But, as I watched - I saw that all they were doing was hugging people, and letting them continue on their way. No pamphlets, no conversion attempt, no proselytizing. So, I decided to give it a try. We hugged.
And then I asked them
"What group are you part of?"
"No group"
So I asked - "What's the story?"
"We're giving free hugs"
"Yes, I see that. But why?"
And their answer: "Just because."
And that was it.
So - how do you get a movement such as this to propagate?
Hello YouTube.
Befriend a band, film some footage of "free hugs", make a video, and put it on YouTube.
That is what Juan Mann and the band Sick Puppies did - and the video has gotten over 40mm views. That makes it the 9th most watched video on YouTube of all time (worldwide, excl professional music videos).
Check it out at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4
The success of the video eventually led to the movement's founder appearing on Oprah.
Internet Marketing for is not just for companies. It's for everyone.
Have you ever seen the free hugs folks? If so, did you hug them?
Next mystery: The "Andre Has a Posse" stickers.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
I found a good new WEBSITE!
It is called Spotify.
www.spotify.com
Check it out.
It allows you to stream music. I think.
I heard about it from a friend, but they weren't accepting new members last time I checked.
Looks like they have re-opened the flood gates.
Sorta like the old RealPlayer Rhapsody - but it actually works.
They plan to replace iTunes. Steve Jobs - look out.
Every song, ever recorded, all online, always available - wherever you go.
No downloading, not backing up. Just listen.
Of course the start-up is from Stockholm, and they are backed by 2 Nordic VCs called Northzone Ventures (Oslo) and Creandum (Sweden).
How is it that the Scandanavians seem to come up with such good tech stuff? Skype, Linux, MySQL, and now Spotify.
I'm still trying to figure out how they plan to make money. I guess premium memberships - or perhaps the will give it away for a while, get folks hooked, and then try to charge everyone (similar to the crack dealer model).
For a service like this - what would be really helpful would be an Amazon-powered song/album recommendation engine - one that keeps track of what you like, and don't like, and makes suggestions accordingly.
I'll do a little more investigating - and keep you posted.
www.spotify.com
Check it out.
It allows you to stream music. I think.
I heard about it from a friend, but they weren't accepting new members last time I checked.
Looks like they have re-opened the flood gates.
Sorta like the old RealPlayer Rhapsody - but it actually works.
They plan to replace iTunes. Steve Jobs - look out.
Every song, ever recorded, all online, always available - wherever you go.
No downloading, not backing up. Just listen.
Of course the start-up is from Stockholm, and they are backed by 2 Nordic VCs called Northzone Ventures (Oslo) and Creandum (Sweden).
How is it that the Scandanavians seem to come up with such good tech stuff? Skype, Linux, MySQL, and now Spotify.
I'm still trying to figure out how they plan to make money. I guess premium memberships - or perhaps the will give it away for a while, get folks hooked, and then try to charge everyone (similar to the crack dealer model).
For a service like this - what would be really helpful would be an Amazon-powered song/album recommendation engine - one that keeps track of what you like, and don't like, and makes suggestions accordingly.
I'll do a little more investigating - and keep you posted.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The most popular website you've never heard of
Quick quiz:
According to Alexa, which of the following sites receives the most traffic globally:
a) eBay.com
That right, you guessed it - b) rapidshare.com
Ranked #12 worldwide - yet I have never heard of it.
What does it do? It allows you to share large files (up to 200MB) with others.
So, what type of files are people sharing with one another?
Well, if it was home movies, youtube allows uploads up to 1GB, and HD quality - so that doesn't make sense.
It it was large files (word docs, powerpoint, spreadsheets) - I would think you would just email it (afterall gmail gives you 7 GB of free storage).
So, let me guess - it's copyrighted movies.
I could be wrong, but that is my hunch.
They can't use youtube, because youtube would pull the content down.
Anyone got a hunch? Does anyone use this site?
Sounds a bit like http://www.getdropbox.com/
I use DropBox, and it is great. Amazingly easy way to collaborate - and it puts google docs to shame.
I am still amazed that it took so long for someone to offer this service.
Perhaps it is a monetization issue, as DropBox is free to use, and doesn't have any advertising (yet). An interesting business model. No rev, lots of server space required. IRR anyone?
According to Alexa, which of the following sites receives the most traffic globally:
a) eBay.com
b) rapidshare.com
c) aol.com
d) amazon.com
That right, you guessed it - b) rapidshare.com
Ranked #12 worldwide - yet I have never heard of it.
see
What does it do? It allows you to share large files (up to 200MB) with others.
So, what type of files are people sharing with one another?
Well, if it was home movies, youtube allows uploads up to 1GB, and HD quality - so that doesn't make sense.
It it was large files (word docs, powerpoint, spreadsheets) - I would think you would just email it (afterall gmail gives you 7 GB of free storage).
So, let me guess - it's copyrighted movies.
I could be wrong, but that is my hunch.
They can't use youtube, because youtube would pull the content down.
Anyone got a hunch? Does anyone use this site?
Sounds a bit like http://www.getdropbox.com/
I use DropBox, and it is great. Amazingly easy way to collaborate - and it puts google docs to shame.
I am still amazed that it took so long for someone to offer this service.
Perhaps it is a monetization issue, as DropBox is free to use, and doesn't have any advertising (yet). An interesting business model. No rev, lots of server space required. IRR anyone?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Viral Marketing - what works and why
Here is an example of a viral video from Amstel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL40D-qG774&NR=1
It is not in English, but the translation is posted in the comments.
From Kaajal blog (http://kaaj.tumblr.com/), I gather that the key charactistics for a viral video to succeed are:
1) edgy
2) surprising
3) original
4) erotic
5) emotional
6) taps into popular culture
So, the Amstel ad possesses 1, 2, 3, & 4.
But one thing that is missing from the list - and this ad - is: effectiveness.
Does the ad actually get people to buy more Amstel beer? And does the increase in sales cover the cost of making and distributing the ad?
Based on the fact that this ad never even mentions the brand, nor does it show the logo (except maybe on the glasses) - I can't imagine that it helps sales in any meaningful way.
Perhaps that is the REAL magic of advertising.
Not that it tricks people into buying things that they don't need (or even want) - but that ad execs are able to trick companies into spending massive amounts on advertising when the returns are often unmeasurable (or none existent).
For all the hundreds of millions that Budweiser spends on advertising, I suppose they could have used that money to reduce the price of the product - or paid larger dividends to shareholders.
But they didn't. They have Louie the lizard, and Spuds McKenzie, the beer dog.
Hard to imagine that was money well spent.
I guess we'll never know.
Although, we could also look at companies that don't advertise much - and pour profits back into improving their products. I wonder how those companies fare without Madison Avenue?
Google, perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL40D-qG774&NR=1
It is not in English, but the translation is posted in the comments.
From Kaajal blog (http://kaaj.tumblr.com/), I gather that the key charactistics for a viral video to succeed are:
1) edgy
2) surprising
3) original
4) erotic
5) emotional
6) taps into popular culture
So, the Amstel ad possesses 1, 2, 3, & 4.
But one thing that is missing from the list - and this ad - is: effectiveness.
Does the ad actually get people to buy more Amstel beer? And does the increase in sales cover the cost of making and distributing the ad?
Based on the fact that this ad never even mentions the brand, nor does it show the logo (except maybe on the glasses) - I can't imagine that it helps sales in any meaningful way.
Perhaps that is the REAL magic of advertising.
Not that it tricks people into buying things that they don't need (or even want) - but that ad execs are able to trick companies into spending massive amounts on advertising when the returns are often unmeasurable (or none existent).
For all the hundreds of millions that Budweiser spends on advertising, I suppose they could have used that money to reduce the price of the product - or paid larger dividends to shareholders.
But they didn't. They have Louie the lizard, and Spuds McKenzie, the beer dog.
Hard to imagine that was money well spent.
I guess we'll never know.
Although, we could also look at companies that don't advertise much - and pour profits back into improving their products. I wonder how those companies fare without Madison Avenue?
Google, perhaps?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Future of advertising when no one watches TV anymore
In just the last year it seems that many of my peers have shifted from watching television and movies on a TV via cable (Virgin), satellite (Sky), or over the airwaves (Freeview) - to watching them over the internet on their laptop.
What does this mean?
It means that they are not seeing ANY ads.
Some of them would probably be fine with ads - it is just that the online streams have the ads removed.
It really seems to me like the movie and TV studios have learned zero from the failures of the music business. Rather than embracing this new medium, and increasing sales and ad revenues, the studios are holding out, and fighting YouTube tooth and nail.
That seems like a losing battle to me.
If you are CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC - why not make all of your shows available online for free - with ads built-in at the beginning, middle, and end?
ABC did this with Lost, and it seemed to be a success.
If you are a large movie studio (Sony, Disney, Universal, Paramount) - why not make digital downloads easy and really inexpensive? And available as soon as the movie is released in the theatre?
By not offering this option, they are essentially creating an incentive for folks to downloand their movies via a Torrent for free (which is a bad habit that will be hard for consumers to change).
If the studios don't offer these options, consumers will still watch your shows and movies online - they just won't pay for them, nor will the studios receive any revenue from ads.
Seems like another case of media industry execs sticking their heads in the sand.
Or maybe the industry sees online distribution as a Pandora's box, and is just trying to forestall the inevitable for as long as possible (and collect their paychecks in the meantime).
Am I wrong? Perhaps selling thru iTunes is the answer? Or hulu.com?
And why doesn't hulu work outside the US? Do advertisers not care about the 6 billion people living in the rest of the world?
What does this mean?
It means that they are not seeing ANY ads.
Some of them would probably be fine with ads - it is just that the online streams have the ads removed.
It really seems to me like the movie and TV studios have learned zero from the failures of the music business. Rather than embracing this new medium, and increasing sales and ad revenues, the studios are holding out, and fighting YouTube tooth and nail.
That seems like a losing battle to me.
If you are CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC - why not make all of your shows available online for free - with ads built-in at the beginning, middle, and end?
ABC did this with Lost, and it seemed to be a success.
If you are a large movie studio (Sony, Disney, Universal, Paramount) - why not make digital downloads easy and really inexpensive? And available as soon as the movie is released in the theatre?
By not offering this option, they are essentially creating an incentive for folks to downloand their movies via a Torrent for free (which is a bad habit that will be hard for consumers to change).
If the studios don't offer these options, consumers will still watch your shows and movies online - they just won't pay for them, nor will the studios receive any revenue from ads.
Seems like another case of media industry execs sticking their heads in the sand.
Or maybe the industry sees online distribution as a Pandora's box, and is just trying to forestall the inevitable for as long as possible (and collect their paychecks in the meantime).
Am I wrong? Perhaps selling thru iTunes is the answer? Or hulu.com?
And why doesn't hulu work outside the US? Do advertisers not care about the 6 billion people living in the rest of the world?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Who is the Tiger Woods of blogging?
From Technorati, I gather that the blogger with the most "authority" (whatever that means) is: Arianna Huffington.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
To me, this calls into question what exactly a blogger is and is not.
As someone who is basically a full-time journalist/columnist - it raises the question: where does journalistic reporting end and blogging begin?
Is George F. Will a columnist, a blogger, or both? He is employed by Newsweek and the Washington Post. But he writes columns, not news articles - and is expected to include his opinions in the pieces. These columns are available both online and in print.
But then again, the loose definition of blogging from Wikipedia is a "web site, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video." By that definition - Huffington would probably qualify as a blog. But what about Boing Boing - a blog written by a group of people? If that is a blog - then couldn't the New York Times be considered a blog?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
To me, this calls into question what exactly a blogger is and is not.
As someone who is basically a full-time journalist/columnist - it raises the question: where does journalistic reporting end and blogging begin?
Is George F. Will a columnist, a blogger, or both? He is employed by Newsweek and the Washington Post. But he writes columns, not news articles - and is expected to include his opinions in the pieces. These columns are available both online and in print.
The answer to this question would seem to lie in a 3x2 matrix. Here it is:
But then again, the loose definition of blogging from Wikipedia is a "web site, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video." By that definition - Huffington would probably qualify as a blog. But what about Boing Boing - a blog written by a group of people? If that is a blog - then couldn't the New York Times be considered a blog?
For labels to be meaningful, you have to draw the line somewhere.
For me, the Huffington post is not a blog. It is a professional opinion publication that happens to be online. She is supported by a group of employees - and the organzition probably runs more like a newsroom than a "blog". Just my 2 cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
