Viral Videos for Brands? Careful!

The Holy grail for many marketers these days seems to be creating a viral video that becomes (to quote the Daily Mail) an "internet sensation".  The reality though is that enormous budgets have been sunk into some of these projects with minimal success.  This must be particularly humbling for creative types when amateur videos like "Charlie Bit Me" and "Fenton" become, er, internet sensations. 

The intent is actually one I like - trying to convey a brand message through content that is engaging and interesting.  However, almost everyone gets it wrong.  At Motors.co.uk, we are keen to do something similar and convinced that we are creative enough.  But whenever we think about it, we over think it and it gets too big, too complex and, worse of all, not that interesting.  One day I hope that the moons will align, we will have our Eureka moment and, in a moment of madness, I will commit budget to creating something that even my Mum has heard of.

In an attempt to make this event a little less serendipitous, I have considered some of the main lessons that brands should learn when creating their next "viral hit".  

1) People aren't actually that interested

People will click through on the potential of something being interesting.  That doesn't mean they are interested.  They are hopeful of being entertained.  But they are also ruthless in switching off.  

If what you show them isn't interesting and interesting immediately, they will stop watching and they will discount your brand as an unfunny, unimaginative brand trying to invade their beloved Internet.

If you can survive it, watch this video.  What does it tell you?  How does it entertain?  If you have a weird fetish for Alfa Romeo's and running, it might be interesting.  But ultimately someone has just asked you to watch a 7 minute car advert.  Top Gear did this with an entire marathon 5 years before and even that wasn't that interesting.

The only thing you learn is that a decent budget was allocated to it.  Shame as the MiTo is a lovely car

If you don't engage immediately, the whole thing is a complete waste.

2) A second on YouTube is equivalent to a minute on TV

The Internet has almost everything you could ever want to know or see, and all within a few clicks.  YouTube shows 20 other videos that are all teasing you whilst you watch something.  The next time YouTube runs a pre-roll advert, make a note how much time is on the "you can skip in ... seconds", you'll be ready to skip in less than one and I guarantee that you won't even know the brand that is advertising.

Asking anyone to commit more than 2 minutes of their time to a video is highly arrogant.  Even if you use teaser videos, consider why someone would watch the full thing if they can get enjoyment from the teaser.  Remember, no one will find your video as interesting as you do.

Embarrassingly, I discount videos on FunnyorDie that are more than 2 minutes.  Even with professional comics, they do not have the right to more of your time than this.

I adore Billy Crystal, but in this video you have to persevere for 40 seconds.  40 seconds?!  I could read 100s of tweets in that time.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0247468f28/when-harry-met-sally-2-with-billy-crystal-helen-mirren

For true art, it is worth devoting this time and there's some great stuff online.  But for a corporate brand to convey its message?  Not a chance.

3) Imagination is greater than budget

I love the democratisation of the Internet, allowing anyone to publish and become an "internet sensation".   Brands have exacerbated this, and I believe there to be a negative correlation between budget and quality of idea.  I'm sure the really good brand virals have fortunes spent with creative agencies, but the Internet demands that things feel real.

This is a video where AutoTrader are trying to give away a car.  That's a really good competition.  Upon digging out this link there has only been 125 views though...

It's primarily made for the trade, but even though I'm in the space, my ADHD kicks in and I'm off.

4) Is it funny?  Really?

"Make an amusing video that people share and create advocacy for our brand" is a statement that should score highly on b*llshit bingo.  Nothing makes life less funny than a censoring ideas through a corporate marketing team who willingly sacrifice the spark of a joke for the value of the message.

I'm sure that running through a script or an idea hundreds of times can cloud anyones judgement of what is funny.  This is why amateur content succeeds.  It is not over thought.  That is the anathema of brand marketing.  Brands need to take risks, cut corners and keep the flame of the idea burning bright.

I have watched this a couple of times and I have no idea what's going on.  I know it's not funny though:

5) Who actually chooses to watch adverts?

Viral videos are completely different to adverts.  With enough money, you can force people to see your advert by putting it in a commercially paid for slot.  When watching TV, we understand the rules and we tolerate them.  Sometimes the adverts are quite amusing.  But there are no rules online.  You can try and seed the video through MPUs and pre-rolls, but consumers have ad-blindness.  You are almost invisible.

Therefore, you have to make the video highly engaging and entertaining (see points 1-4 above for how difficult this is).  But even if you make the best video, you are in the lap of the gods as to whether anyone watches it.  PR can help,  but journalists are even more sceptical than consumers.  Seeding as pre-roll on YouTube will help, but you've got just 5 seconds to make it worthwhile and still expect the consumer to share it.

The great thing is that there is so much traffic on YouTube and the Internet in general, that good content will rise to the top. Brands can support this, but it is hard work.  I find low view counts on brand videos painfully embarrassing.  

Remember, this is what you are competing against:

The first 17 seconds are all about Fosters, but I am compelled to watch this video.  Yes it has cheated by having a big budget, but I maintain that the imagination behind the concept is greater than the budget.

Why bother?

Good point.  Unless you are confident that you are creating something that, if you didn't work for the company, even in your most depressed or bored moments you would still find interesting then don't.  But if you are able to think of something that will engage and entertain in a superficially short period of time, then do it - it could be great.  

To misquote JFK - we do things not because they are easy, but because they are difficult.

Hug a Car Buyer

Given my role at Motors.co.uk, you might presume that I would be well placed in searching for and buying a car.  But the truth is that I was absolutely petrified going through the process.  It highlights to me the massive opportunity that awaits Motors.co.uk to go beyond the traditional classified offering and provide real confidence to the consumer.

Even though I run a used car website, I am not a natural car enthusiast.  I have a reasonable knowledge, but nowhere near a natural interest in the variety of cars.  This has always left me emasculated amongst friends and family who have an encyclopaedic knoweledge of cars (my brother could identify makes of cars by their headlights by the age of 3) - another thing to put on my growing list of insecurities.  In short, I consider myself a typical (scared) customer.  

It's dangerous to think of yourself as the market, but I was intrigued by my approach, my fears and behaviours.  A couple of points marked my car search process, months of research online and a single retail site visit because I couldn't be bothered to go further.  I'm not sure if this was because I felt sufficiently empowered (I had done a LOT of research) or because on balance I knew that I had found a car that pretty much met my requirements and I was at a retailer who I felt I could trust.   Whilst I don't consider myself normal, my behaviour was normal - consumers are visiting more and more websites in their research whilst making fewer visits to the dealer themselves. 

Obviously the internet was key in my research process, it was also invaluable in the purchase too.  As I was walked into buying the car, I regularly took time out to look at similar prices of cars on the Motors.co.uk iPhone app.  This gave me confidence that i) the car was priced in-line with others so the convenience of buying on first visit could be justified; and ii) that the salesperson might view me as a "knowledgeable" buyer and not try to sell me a dud. 

However, the fact I felt obliged to do that shows just how scared I was face-to-face with a sales professional.  Paranoid about being sold a dud is a fallacy as I was buying from a reputable retailer who I know has a longer-term business model than ripping off one poor mug.  But my fear was there nonetheless and I am sure it is there with almost every other consumer.  This needs to change.

There are two major routes that I see.  Firstly, consumers will become increasingly comfortable buying online.  Even with a non-homogenous product that is a used car, I had a very good basis for believing that this car was right for me.  My retail experience could have been made much more enjoyable had I been offered the option to test drive the car at home.  I am convinced that I would have happily bought the car rather than the nervous twitches I had at the dealership as I was walked into a purchase.  For new car sales, this is a no brainer.

The second route is for retailers to provide a great level of customer service.  There will always be some differences between volume and prestige brands, but good customer service with sales people who want to build a long-term relationship should be a united aim.  I experienced buyers remorse when I got the car home, wondering why the sales person was so happy to have me buy the car, rather than being grown up enough to accept that a mutually beneficial transaction had taken place.  To overcome this, the consumer will use the internet to arm themselves when going "into battle".  Take myself, not only did I know the make and model, but I knew the trim, mileage range and price that I wanted.  At no point was I asked, "why do you think that's the right thing for you?".  There may well have been better alternatives for me, but I had gone in with such a game face that it being about getting in and out as quick as possible.  I dearly wanted someone to say, "I understand, you've made the right choice" and then give me a hug.

There are many dealers who are making real strides at improving the consistency of their sales process and investing in long-term customer retention, but I do believe that there is a real opportunity for the industry to find ways to better increase overall confidence with consumers.  If we can do this, I believe that we will make car buying an enjoyable process and not just one that is entered into when life circumstances dictate that we need to change our car.  The number of transactions in the UK is stifled by this nervousness.  

At Motors.co.uk, we are having great fun brainstorming ways to be part of this.  The next time I buy a used car, I want to drive away not praying that the car won't fall to pieces.  My recent purchase didn't, and it won't, but I never got the hug that I needed.  What if all or part of that hug came online?

 

Tracks of 2012

As another passes I reflect on another year where I criticise myself for becoming more removed from new music.  I still love that moment when you discover a tune or an artist that contains something special.  In this digital age, discovery should be easier than ever, but I find it increasingly difficult.  Why?  Two linked reasons: 1) the internet actually makes sourcing recommendations much more fragmented, there is no "go to" place (though if I had to choose one, I'd suggest Marc Riley on 6Music); 2) I don't have enough time!

With this in mind, I thought I'd share my limited experiences of 2012 and my favourite songs of the last year.  I hope that this provides you with a taster of some music that you might not have otherwise heard.  

The list isn't in order, other than to say that First Aid Kit is absolutely a favourite.

Please leave a comment if you want to share your tunes of 2012 and, more importantly, tips for 2013.

First aid kit - Emmylou

An incredible album, but this song blows me away every time I hear it.  About the only lyric of the year I remember is "Stockholm's cold, but I've been told, that I've been built to endure this kind of weather".  Not sure if that's a classic line, but I love it.

Sharon Van Etten - Give Out

It feels like this song has played on every run I've been on in the last few months.  So good

Trailer Trash Tracys - You Wish You Were Red 

There's a handful of songs that have a guitar sound that makes me ache, this is one of them

Of Monsters and Men - Little Talks

"Ba da da da da da da daaa, hey!" I defy this to not make you dance

Francois and the Atlas Mountains - Les Plus Beaux

A real dreamscape of a song.  Beautifully put together

The Dø - Gonna Be Sick 

Heard this in session and loved it ever since.  I'm gonna throw up...

Darren Hayman - I Taught You How To Dance

Almost cried the first time I heard this and every time since

Chilly Gonzales - Othello

What a pianist.  The notes to the album say that the piano is a limited instrument and this is an attempt to make it sing.  Absolutely achieves that

Two Door Cinema Club - Sun

Got me at the end of the year, and seriously catchy (should the song partly credited to Mark Owen?)

Martin Rossiter - I Must Be Jesus

See here for more thoughts on Martin, whilst the lyrics are deliberately outrageous, the Bacharach influenced piano is the thing that attaches me to the song

http://www.martinrossiter.co.uk/media/ (check out the music player on the right hand side of the screen)

Laura J Martin - Spy

In the first 6 months of the year, I must have listed to Laura J Martin's album more than anything else.  The best flautist since Ron Burgundy

http://www.myspace.com/lalajmartin/music/songs/spy-68042788

Drawn Back To The Deep End

The first gig I went to without parental supervision was Gene at the UEA in Norwich.  It was a coming of age.  It was also the first time I tried to smoke a cigarette.  I quickly proved that smoking wasn't cool.  This was a major step of my independence, and fuel for my future passion for live music.  Gene became a flagship band for my teenage years.

As much as I liked them, my friend Marcus took it on himself to let Gene into his inner sanctum of idols and this passion helped sustain my interest throughout the years.  A few acts have been granted immortality by Marcus and he is rarely wrong.

I was naturally excited when Marcus told me that my birthday present this year was an exclusive listening session for Martin Rossiter's new album with Q&A with the legend himself.  Even though Gene weren't the biggest band, and haven't been around for years, I believed that he would be of such wealth and importance that to gain his audience must be a rare privilege.  And that is absolutely was.

The present was gifted through Pledge which I urge everyone to use where possible, bypassing record labels where the artist puts in the effort to build a relationship direct with fans. 

Listening to the album in a room of c30 people was a surreal experience.  I couldn't tell you the last time that I just sat down and listened to music.  I resisted the itch to unlock my phone and look at something, it would have been disrespectful and I needed to prove to myself that I could do it.  It was harder than I expected (a problem that requires much more analysis), but it was lovely taking in the details that would typically pass me by.

The album is an ambitious piano and voice record, sung brilliantly and with accomplished songs that have been lovingly pulled together.  Martin talks about these being hymns and I can see that description.  The overriding image I had was of a deeply melancholic Burt Bacharach playing piano and singing songs he wouldn't dare record for the outside world, alone in a beautiful house with open windows overlooking the ocean on a rainy day.  The last bit of this sentence shows how my imagination was allowed to run away.  This was occasionally replaced with an image of Martin playing piano loudly in his home and wondering if his neighbours ever complained of the noise (he absolutely belts out some of the notes).

After the listening, we had a Q&A with Martin in which he was incredibly open and honest.  He was much more accessible than I expected, again assuming infinite wealth and importance. I had presumed (hoped) that he would be his cutting self, but he wasn't, he was just honest.  I now wonder if headlines like this are misquotes (eg "Blur and Pulp can f*ck off to Butlins").  He was humble of the situation he was in with the release of the record and proud of his work which was refreshing.  At times I feared it could become like "An Audience with Alan Partridge", but his self awareness reigned it in.

(Had this been the case, I was sitting next to Jez - I suspect Marcus has a tattoo of Martin's face on his back).

Most of the questions were introduced with a story or summary of how important Gene and Martin were to the audience's life.  Having thought Marcus and I were strange for many years, it was great to take some comfort that others had seen and fallen for the same things.  Few live bands could match Gene's energy - and although this is a blog about Martin -the guitar playing and general musicianship was beyond the size of venue they were typically playing. But the songs were powerful too and resonated with my teenage frustrations and ambitions (I originally started a list of songs I loved, but that is too boring, even for this blog).

Given this emotional attachment, can I be truly objective about the album?  Probably not, but I have listened to the album 4 times today and it stands as an incredibly accomplished work, without the history.  I heard one of the songs on 6Music the other day and it did not sound out of place with new songs in the same way that many songs from Gene's era can do. 

You're unlikely to be dancing to the album, but give it the attention it deserves and it will keep giving.  It's taught me to take more time actually listening to music, which is only fair when we consider the effort that goes into the creation.  

Do me a favour and listen to an album from start to finish with no distractions.  It's worth it.  I recommend it be this one.

http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/martinrossiter

http://soundcloud.com/martinrossiter

https://itunes.apple.com/album/defenestration-st-martin/id575906261?v0=9988&ign-mpt=uo%3D1

Pinkerton

For me, all bands should sound like Weezer.  I love the energy of songs that sound as if they are being played in the garage.  It brings back great memories of doing the same myself (though with much less quality!).  On the face of it there are the pop sensibilities of guitar, bass, drums and vocals, but an underlying ambition drives the whole thing forward.

Buying their first album in 1994 was a milestone in my musical heritage.  Predictably, I came to it because of Buddy Holly, but I have stayed with it ever since because of Undone (the Sweater Song) and Say it Ain't So and every other track.  I have been quick to buy any subsequent albums ... but not Pinkerton.

It is wildly illogical, but for some reason I never got around to buying Pinkerton which is often remarked as the band's best album.

I now find myself in the position of laying my hands on a masterpiece that I have never known.  Imagine that The Beatles snuck in an album in between Revolver and Sgt Peppers and it had only just been made available.  That is the excitement I'm now faced with.

I'm trapped on a long flight to San Francisco and making the most of the trip to listen to an album that has inexplicably passed me by.  I can remember reading the rave reviews about it.  I can remember being intrigued about Rivers Cuomo's break from Weezer to study classical music at Harvard University. I can remember standing in front of it in Our Price and choosing another album.  I can't remember what the other album was.

There is no doubt that I really enjoy this album.  But the pervading emotion is one of regret.  This is an album that was written for the 15-17 year old me.  This album should have been the soundtrack to my melancholy years but for some inexplicable reason, I ignored it.

The sound on the album is darker than typical Weezer.  The guitars have more fuzz and are louder in the mix requiring the vocals to strain to be heard, which brings out the desperation of the lyrics.  It's an incredible mix of garage band meets emotion and intelligence.  The essence of why I adore Weezer.

Before I get too carried away, those years life had a great soundtrack which allowed me to wallow in the atrocities I faced (typically rejection by girls or more accurately perceived rejection as I liked to create my own dramas without the inconvenience of incurring rejection!).  This music sticks with me today, like good friends who were always there when you need them.  

So today I find myself greatly enjoying the album, but knowing that I'm missing the fundamental emotional connection to make this part of my lifeblood.  I will be filing for future reference to pass to my son.  What a weird moment that will be: "here you go son, here's a load of music to make you feel better when you think the world hates you".  I'm sure I need to find a smarter way of doing that.  

For now, I picture myself in my old bedroom, listening to the album and writing very bad poetry.  Oh Pinkerton, we would have been so good together...

Bad Revenue

“Is there such a thing as bad revenue?”  I think the answer depends on how much you need it , but it does illustrate the dilemma that a usually positive thing can bring. 

Lately, I’ve pondered this whilst wrestling with the question of whether display advertising should be shown on classified sites. 

At its most basic, the answer is probably “no – it interferes with the user experience”.  Classified sites, unlike content rich sites (eg news, review, blogs etc), make their primary income from the advertising listings on the site.  As a result, it is easy to conclude that this is the purpose of the site and anything that doesn’t serve these advertisers is a distraction.

The case against continues when you think of the space on the site that is given up to display advertising.  Leaderboards sit at the top of the page pushing down any listings, and often relegating the site’s own brand to the next level.  MPUs, the must-have ad-spot today, can look great when served with video, but are of such a width that many classified sites have had to make compromises to make them fit onto the page.  But one of the biggest things that weighs against display advertising is the additional weight they can add to a page, slowing down the speed of response.

At this point, have I made a decision?  Philosophically, potentially…

As ever though, things aren’t that simple.  The revenue that is generated from display is actually quite useful.  It is revenue that we don’t have to ask for from our other advertisers.  It is also a feature that can enrich the general content of the site if it is complementary – though worth noting that very rarely does this seem to be the case. 

In my regular trawl of classified sites, I’ve been surprised by the variety of approaches to display advertising.  Some such as Rightmove look initially brave enough to take it off the site, until you discover some well integrated display slots that don’t interfere significantly with the experience – I particularly like the text links which are on topic .  It seems even the biggest players have not been brave enough to provide a clean experience for consumer or listing advertiser.  Other classified sites around have sacrificed their UX to the promise of making more money from display than listing, a very dangerous model if you ask me.

The majority of this thought is weighted to the negatives of display advertising, but still sites are not brave enough to forego it having structured their businesses around the expectation of receiving it.  Revenue has a way of being quite persuasive. 

I Don't Know ... Or Do I?

Recently it struck me how, at work, I am often compelled to answer “I don’t know”.  Admittedly a lot of the times are simply because I don’t know, but it also seems to be an inevitable consequence of management.

I strongly believe in being open with everyone where I can, but the caveat is exercised more than it should.  In fact, by being open with people you are often furnishing with information that allows them to ask questions that you simply can’t answer.

On a recent drive home, it struck me that this simple phrase has a number of different meanings.  Below is a list of interpretations I can think of:

• I don’t know
• I do know but can’t tell you
• I do know but don’t want to tell you
• I’m really sorry but in due course you’ll understand why I couldn’t tell you
• I do know but can’t think of a quick lie to sidestep you
• I do know but you won’t like the answer and I need to bide time until I can find a way of telling you
• I should know and am worried about looking stupid if I get the answer wrong
• I wasn’t really listening (more likely to be greeted with a “yes”)
• I do know but don’t have the time or energy to tell you
• I’m not sure you should know enough to ask me that
• I think you might use the answer against me if I don’t answer it properly
• I think you’re a spy
• I’ve answered the same question before but can’t remember what I said and don’t want to be inconsistent
• I’ve forgotten the question and don’t want to look stupid by asking you to repeat it

I wish I could pass on any “tell” that I have about which of the above I am using.  The only tip I can give is if there is a delay in my answer and a glazed look in my eyes, I’ve probably just forgotten the question or wasn’t really listening.

After that, if you ask me “what do you mean by ‘I don’t know’?”  I’m afraid the answer might be doubly frustrating.

Consequently, if anyone ever does give you this irritating answer, remember there is only a one in fourteen chance that they actually mean it.