Viral Sandbagging & The CGM Paradox

Two trends are headed for a viral clash, and we might as well start talking about them right now. One one hand we have the explosion of word-of-mouth marketing, best reflected in the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association's (WOMMA) fast-growing 250-member strong membership roster, which includes some of the nation's top advertisers.  This constituency is dedicated to the proposition that the fastest-growing, most trusted media is that which consumer share amongst themselves. You love or hate a product, you tell others.  You love a marketing campaign or ad campaign, the network effect you trigger helps build the brand.  In this camp, brands and agencies either high-five themselves or take victory laps when their viral campaigns fly all over the web (even when offline events are the primary catalysts).  In this blog, I often write about the so-called "CGM Multiplier Effect." The more free impressions, the greater the ROI.  Just ask viral darlings Crispin Porter + Bogusky, P&G's Tremor Brand, BzzAgent, M80 Interactive, or most of the water-cooler thirsty brands who advertised in the Super Bowl. 

Enter (Legal) Viral Sandbagging:  Now we are seeing early warning signs that spreading the good word, especially in video format, may not be the appropriate or cool thing to do.  And it might actually be illegal, as popular video-sharing site YouTube learned after NBC requested that it remove clips of what arguably is the most hilarious and frequently viewed viral video of the year: "Lazy Sunday" (otherwise known as the "Chronicles of Narnia Rap").  It's not without irony that this story is breaking less than two months after BlogPulse's "2005 in Review" ranked Volkswagon's Gene Kelley Golf/GTI TV commercial as the #1 shared video of the year in the Blogosphere.  Not surprisingly, there's no complaining from the VW brand or their agency; if anything, they are probably hoping WOMMA will come up with the viral equivalent of the Emmies -- the WOMMIES -- to reward such word-of-mouth success.  Just to put all this in perspective, the SNL Rap garnered far more online buzz than Burger King's $5MM Whopperettes commercial during the Super Bowl.

But Wait, It Gets More Complex:  Of course, it's never that simple.  If you've spent any time on iTunes recently, you'll notice that the archive of TV content for download to the iPod video player is just exploding, especially in the comedy arena, led by Saturday Night Live compilations.  One could potentially argue there's a real opportunity cost of allowing free video sharing of clips when you can charge customers $2 or more per download.  Then again, there's the good old fashioned marketing rules of "trial and awareness" one must consider.

Emerging Dilemmas:   Expect this debate to get messier and more complex before it gets resolved. Here are few question we should be asking:

• TV Ad Restrictions: Will lawyers apply to same content restrictions to television commercials that are shared and spread online?  If networks push too aggressively on such restrictions, will brands perceive less "ROI" in their advertising potential?  Under what circumstances could "repurposed" ad copy be shared?  Are consumers to blame if marketers put "send this to a friend" links all over their web sites?
• TV Copy Remixing: What if the TV copy is tweaked or "remixed" (a term Dave Evans described in a recent ClickZ column)?  We see this with music "sampling" all the time? 
• Favorability Filters:  Will brands go after consumers who create negative "branded" CGM while ignoring those who positively advertise on behalf of the brand?  Will the past muster?
• "Incidental Product Placement":  Will lawyers take issue with the fact that there are millions of instances of what I call "Incidental Product Placement," whereby branded imagery dots the landscape of photos, videos, and other consumer-created content on the web?  And who's to blame...the consumers, or the marketers selling the "capture" devices?

The rap on the rap is this: lots of questions need to be worked up before we can look at this hot-potato on an issues and say..."it's a rap."

Comments

[Gary Stein]

This is an important post, because it cuts to the practicality of WOM/Viral techiniques. The NBC case notwithstanding, it is clear that allowing a piece of content to be freely shared and remixed is not an easy thing to do inside of a corporation. This is why simplistic calls to "let go of control" in marketing articles and speeches fall flat.

I think marketers should visit Creative Commons. This non-profit is seeking a new version of copyright. Artists are starting to pay attention, and marketers should as well.

[Kevin Dugan]

Pete brings up some important questions and they remind me of the music sampling discussion years back.

Creative Commons is a good place to start, but I suspect we won't find all of the answers there.

If passionate consumers are re-mixing your ads or your brand and not doing it for commercial gain, do you want to stop this? It depends. Your customers' interpretation of your brand may not agree with your company's interpreation.

If this occurs, it raises a whole other set of questions as to what your brand's value really is in the eyes of the consumer.

[earthling]

I've found that the language of the Creative Commons licenses are pretty vague and clumsy, especially the ones on Flickr. In my experience, contacting the artist directly ends up being a necessary step one way or the other. In its present form, CC isn't doing much but telling me to go talk to the artist about what I want to do.

I thought it was interesting that NBC did not go after any of the individuals remixing Lazy Sunday, at least not the ones on YouTube.com that I can tell. Is this an implicit statement of fair use limits, or was it just too impractical to go after them?

[owen]

awesome post pete. love it. NBC's move is exactly what i would expect (they want to own the right to sell their material for $1.99 a download) and yet so dumb. i haven't watched SNL for years. because it sucks. then i saw this vid on you tube and thought "oh, might be time to tune in again." the unauthorized display of Lazy Sunday probably gained SNL viewers. I guess the question for the new millenium is: What's more valuable... TV network viewers (and network ad revenue) or $1.99 downloads? How about option C? Giving away branded content. Make engaging content that involves brands. I'm not talking about product placement...that sucks. I'm talking about making content that is openly about marketing & advertising and people and pop culture. That's what CP+B is doing, and the other digital players too. It's what i'm doing with
coBRANDiT, but with a WOM/CGM angle. The content has to be better than an ad. It has to be grounded in reality.

Back to Lazy Sunday: notice NBC slapped down the lawsuit, not Narnia or any of the other brands mentioned in the skit. Brands want the stuff given away, content creators want to get paid. If brands create the content, problem solved. Here's the WOM/CGM catch: they need to create the content with their audience. customers. consumers.

as for the inevitable negative stuff: if you've got a good product and you don't treat people like jerks, or destroy the environment, don't sweat it. again a key WOM principle...make people happy. engage your detractors. do good. yes, i have swallowed the kool aid.

i think CC is great. it doesn't even matter to me what the details are. what's important to me is that it shows (when you see a CC licsence) that the creator isn't an ass. don't you hate all the copyright and restricted and TM signs you see on corporate stuff? it's a joke. CC means you want to share and collaborate. nice.

how's that for an answer pete?

[owen]

ok, i didn't edit before posting...such is the nature of a rant. let me clarify: for NBC it's a question of network viewers and ad revenue vs. $1.99 downlaods. one or the other has to work for them or they're screwed. for brands trying to decide where to put their ad $$, how NBC makes it work is of no consequense. they can produce content (option C above) and distribute it themselves.

or anyway, that's one option...