Does anyone know what the first 'viral video' really was? I am going to guess it was the dancing baby. At the end of the day, it was funny and you just wanted to watch, you had no idea but it made you laugh. Was it offensive? Perhaps to some MADBIDOTI "Mothers Against Dancing Baby's in Diapers on the Internet" but not sure they really count as the 'target audience' for this.
Over the past few years, the internet, its viralness, and marketing have evolved. Primarily because:
1) The tools have evolved. Just as everyone had a Photoshop 10 years ago to make funny pictures to use for marketing, today people have video cameras. And if a picture can paint a 1,000 words, how may words can 10 frames a second for 2 minutes paint? Video is the next wave in marketing now that the masses can afford to do it.
2) Sorry but the folks working in the data center today grew up on cheat notes and a 'did you watch the movie' mentality. The times of reading the industry 'fish wrap' are gone. Today's IT people grew up on The Justice League, Gilligan's Island, Seinfeld, and commercials. Reading is a distant second. (Not saying IT folks can't read, they just prefer not to.)
Marketing MUST and WILL evolve to include videos, get ready for it and get used to it. I know if I want to get smart on a topic, say how to do funny, smart, viral videos (Mark Farley @ StorageRap) I watch videos for ideas. And if I want to learn how to make creative blog content I watch videos (Mark Farley @ StorageRap). (BTW, if it's not obvious, I credit @3ParFarley with the innovation in todays high tech blogging with creative videos - I don't care what that Storage Monkey's survey says !) Mark knew early on that the traditional 'write a bunch of content and they will come' mentality wasn't working and it didn't matter that you were a published author and had 'storage street cred' or not. (Think about that Mr. Preston.)
So what is the real objective behind these 'viral' videos (and we will get back to the term 'viral' in a minute). Just like TV commercials are used to drive awareness, I believe so are the videos being created by high-tech companies. Its additive to marketing. When was the last time a Geico commercial made you jump up to the web site and see if in 15 minutes you could save 15% on your car insurance? It doesn't, well at least no the first time. But after watching the videos for 3 years, and being board at my computer one day, watching the Geico commercials on YouTube, I decided to see if 15minutes could save 15% off my car insurance. And you know what, it didn't. You know what else, I wasn't mad about it or think that some how Geico had duped me. The objective of the commercial worked, and if my videos don't drive leads to my web site but make Storwize known in some way such that it gives a prospect a reason to have a conversation with a sales rep versus blowing them off, then it did its job.
Now that creating videos is much cheaper today that it was before it just makes sense. Wikibon talks about the fact that "analysts need to be up on 'new media' and be able to create content and deliver it to the 'watering holes' where people hang out if you expect to reach them" and I agree. Videos, Podcast (Infosmack), TV, and blogs are all the next evolution in high tech marketing.
So what is the problem? Well there seems to be a couple of issues. First is the methodology used to distribute these videos. I am of the mindset that spam is spam and I hate it as much as the next person. I believe that you need to use the tools that are made available to folks to push out your message, just like you do today. Now, if that means email lists, and my aunts daughter is on that list and gets the message so be it. Stuff like that happens every day. And if she does get the message and briefly looks at it and says, "I don't care about this but my uncle may" and forwards it on, well I guess it did its job, just like a TV commercial.
The second issues is pretty obvious if you ask me. The old days of an analyst getting $10K to write a white paper and then the media firm getting $15K to post the paper and guarantee 150 leads are dwindling. A marketing budget that may have had $50K in it for white papers (which was revenue to the analysts) now has $20K for white papers and $30K for videos. And where vendors use to spend $15K with TechTarget or InfoStor they are now spending it with social media agencies that can get 100,000 of 'impressions' to drive awareness. 'New media' is taking some money off the table for some of the folks that aren't or can't keep up with the times.
I am sure we haven't seen the last of this conversation and how content (of different kinds), social media and marketing will all collide and may even have an outcome that none of us had considered nor have we seen the end of 'viral' videos - which begs me to ask the question,
**UPDATED - For those of you who will continue to do viral videos - here are some good links on ethics and best practices when making things viral.
The Secret Strategies Behind Many "Viral" Videos
Andy Sernovitz: Social Media Ethics Briefing: Staying Out of Trouble -- live from BlogWell
BTW: When does a video go viral, is it after 107 or 108 views?
And if that's not enough for you, watch this really hilarious video on how 15 minutes could save you 50% of your storage capacity.