Favorites
History
- Member for
- 13 years 7 weeks
-
Oh you two had to know this topic would flush me out of the woodwork, right? Part of the problem is a less than common definition of the word "viral" when applied to marketing: different people are using that word to mean different things, and then measuring the results of success in different ways. "Viral" has become a general catch-all category for everything interactive, in a way. There's still alot of education to take place for agencies and marketers alike with any new practice. Jeff Hick's theoretical advice is right: the age of intrusion is drawing to a close, and it's final chapter will look like an arms race between the tools to prevent intrusion and the tools to enable intrusion. "Viral" (in terms of the pass-along, word-of-mouthish feature that gets labeled with that) is essentially just a form of testimonial -- and that means creating a value exchange that favors the audience more than advertiser, which is a fundamentally different way of thinking about it. It's just that it's as old as the birth of commercial supported radio broadcasts in early part of the last century. Marketers are starting to wake up again to the power of being a sponsor instead of being just an advertiser. And when did Cannes become like the Olypmics or something where we're keeping track of how many medals come home? Jeeze, that hardly ever happens on the film or entertainment circuit. At least not along nationalistic lines.on the post: Viral advertisements spreading
-
Ah, yes. The elephants in the room. Well, I shouldn't speak for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, but the impression I'm getting from members of their organization is that their current ethics document that sets the age at which consent is no longer required at 13 (!!) won't see that in the next revision. I sure hope that ends up being the case, because that seems just crazy. And "agents" is as convienent a term as any since it's the term used by a notable company that has had bad press about minors and these kinds of incentivized "sales networks" in the past. It's interesting that it's that company's "home state" that's first in addressing the issue legislatively. And I totally agree with you that "best practices and acceptible ethics" should set a bar even higher than "legally required." I have fears that in the same way spam and maybe 500 offenders (and even the weak-handed CAN-SPAM law) cast a long-term stigma on legitimate email publishing, some of the really good things about buzz and viral techniques will get similarly stigmitized by what is really only a handful of practitioners. I'm all for transparency in regards to these kinds of things. I think much of buzz practice is about *really* winning the fandom of the audience (instead of just interrupting them with a pitch). That's never going to work if it's not a netiquette-based approach. There's plenty of room to suprise and joke with that audience, but rude folk generally don't win friends and influence people.on the post: Association Sets 'No Minors Under 16' Standard
-
Personally, I don't either, Caffeinegoddess. That's why my quote is in that release saying that VBMA feels a hands-off approach on using minors as "shills" is best practice the industry should adopt. That's why the proposed legislation seems like a good idea, but hardly a replacement for self-regulation (which reach some higher test than just "not illegal," don't you think?) I used "agents" only because I don't know WHAT to call that segment of the industry ... well, nothing I could call it publicly. "Incentivized consumer marketers" might be as good a term as any. Caffeinegoddess: you realize that I'm on the side of being highly critical of those business models, right? My personal practice is far, far away from that kind of incentivized buzz (and looks alot more like "branded entertainment".) To be honest, asking high school kids to "shill" a product to make up for insufficient funding of school's extracurricular activities makes similar noises of dis-ease :)on the post: Association Sets 'No Minors Under 16' Standard
-
Actually, those of us in the VBMA are still keen on the idea of industry self-regulation. What's unusual about the Mass. legislation is that it is an amendment of their labor laws, which seems appropriate given the "pseudo-employment" aspect of just those practitioners that deal in incentivized word-of-mouth. Most practitioners outside of that incentivized niche tend to take a stronger line than even the proposed legislation (which would just require parental consent if the "agent" was under 16 years old.) Best, Brian Clark President, VBMAon the post: Association Sets 'No Minors Under 16' Standard
