Viral Marketing: A Social Media Experience

Written By: Khadeeja Coonrod

Ever heard of anything such as word of mouth? Ever heard of Viral Marketing? Welcome to Viral Marketing, a marketing technique that uses social networks to increase brand awareness by word of mouth delivery or network effects of the internet. Viral promotions come in the forms of: E-books, images, text messaging, video clips, brandable software, advergames, and interactive Flash games.

In the 1990's the producers of Mystery Science Theatre realized that their best marketers were the show's few but faithful audience and so they encouraged the show's viewers to videotape their copyrighted shows and pass on to friends. This was the beginning of a new way for word of mouth to spread.

Flashforward to 2002, three years before YouTube, BMW reported that over 11 million viewers tuned in to watch The Hire, a series of eight short films made specifically for the internet starring Clive Owen. 2 million of those viewers registered to the BMW website and within four years, the videos were viewed over 100 million times.

The proof now exists that viral marketing is a good technique. YouTube acquainted viral marketing to social media. Now we have more tools than we know what to do with: YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, Flickr, Ning, and the list goes on.

Let me give an example of how I've seen viral marketing do way better now than personal face to face contact has. I was working with an owner to promote his club and he wanted a street team to put promotional flyers for his club on cars parked around the club area. Do you want to know what everyone did? Most got to their cars and took it off, made sure it's not a parking ticket, and then threw it on the ground. Many of them looked annoyed or angry that there was some paper on their car in the first place only promoting yet another club that may or may not last. The street team I was working with kept saying, "This would be easier if the owner used Facebook or Myspace to send out club invitations and there, people can look at more information and see who's attending the events held."

Friendly faces aren't enough these days. People want to see results. People want to make sure someone they know will be there, they want to discuss details. They want to know through the web. The internet is the place to do that since it uses marketing tools to help promote their companies from online contests to online banner ads.

Blogging is another huge tool in social interaction. One of the first ways people will openly discuss something they saw or experienced that they liked or didn't like is to blog about it. Once it's out in the open, you get a reaction. Someone will either agree with you or disagree with you but now you have a list full of comments by readers or fans who are adding in their two cents worth. This is an effort in contribution.

To make viral marketing work, you must be able to build a solid relationship and how's that done? Communication, communication, communication. It's all about what the consumer wants. It's all about what's being mentioned by everyone. The consumer gets the last word. But just because someone tells you to buy a certain laptop doesn't mean you're going to go out and purchase it. You want the one that goes with you. You may not even want a laptop, you may want a PC or; you may not even know what you want. It could turn out that you may need to talk to someone who can assist you in trying to figure out what you need, what you don't want, and try to then know exactly what works best for you. It's about listening and paying attention to what websites are being used, what isn't going well for people, and what could be improved.

Viral marketing is about catering to the crowd and influencing what's in demand for the masses.

Piracy, The Future Money Maker?

Written By: Khadeeja Coonrod
Photo Credit: Michael Cogliantry

**Editor's Note: Before you read this article, read "Why Selling Records is Like Picking Up Women, and How The Big 4 Failed"

Illegal file sharing may turn out to be the next big sale. DigiRights Solutions (DRS) from Damstadt, Germany is passing around a presentation to future possible clients offering plans for how they might make more money by overtaking illegal file sharing instead of regular, legal sales. The interesting part about all of this is the fact that DigiRights Solutions is an anti-piracy body.

There's a mysterious number to the DRS strategy: one figure would ask for 25 per cent of people who get a letter, warning of legal action, if they prefer to pay the settlement fee without question. So that would be up to 150 times what a legal download brings in.

DRS says presently it can go after 5,000 illegal downloaders a month so their approach comes from the amount of legal sales compared to the amount of threatening letters DRS can send out for a client.

The plan is simple, DRS is going to force money out of lawbreakers by encouraging illegal music to be downloaded. The idea is simply genius.

If Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster heard about this, I would be curious in what he had to say since Napster was one of the biggest popular peer-to-peer file distribution systems and was different from previous networks since it focused exclusively in music in the form of MP3 files. Napster also provided a wider selection of music that could be downloaded and copies of older songs, unreleased recordings, and bootleg recordings from concerts could be shared through Napster. After a few lawsuits which the first done by Metallica due to a leak of their demo and later the company had another lawsuite this time coming from Dr. Dre after he had sent a letter asking his works to be removed and then it not being done. Napster later shut itself down in July 2001 and declared itself bankrupt in 2002. It started June 1999 and paved the way for major filesharing companies such as Limewire and I-Tunes which are major names in filesharing providers along with Kazaa, Imeem, and Pandora; to name a few.

DRS is thinking forward and one's thing's for sure, it's paying close attention to what's happening in the technology industry and how to gain more money.

FCC Net Neutrality Doesn't Go Over Well

Written By: Khadeeja Coonrod

It seemed like a brilliant plan to the FCC (Federal Communications Commissions) when FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced in September 2009 his plans to develop formal rules prohibiting internet providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications. Then 44 companies sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could make the process of the development of the Internet more difficult.

The letter stated; "Until now, the innovators who are building the Internet and creating the advancements in telemedicine, education and the vast array of other online products and services have done so in an environment driven by competition and innovation. We believe government's role in the Internet should be to support investment, jobs and new technologies, especially if they increase the opportunity for all Americans to connect online. Public policy should encourage more investment to expand access to the Internet, whether it is access through a cell phone, a laptop, a PC or any new device that we have yet to imagine. If the FCC takes a prescriptive approach to new regulations, then it could place itself in the position of being the final arbiter of what products and services will be allowed on the Internet." The letter was signed by Cisco Sytems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Erricsson, Motorola, and Nokia.

The companies believe the new rules could prohibit broadband providers from offering advanced and well-managed networks. The day before these companies sent in their letter, a group of 18 Repulican U.S. senators also sent in a letter also raising concerns about net neutrality regulations. "Broadband is growing while other segments of the U.S. economy are struggling, and there have been only a couple of examples of broadband providers blocking or slowing Web content," told the letter spearheaded by a Kansas Rebublican senator, Sam Brownback.

The net neutrality backers say new rules are necessary to protect the open nature of the Internet. "The FCC in 2005 relaxed rules requiring network providers to share their networks with competitors and without a net neutrality rule, powerful, large broadband providers could shut out Web sites or applications," net neutrality advocates say.

"Net neutrality rules would protect innovators and small businesses that want equal access to broadband networks from large companies that can enter into deals with network providers," said Art Brodsky, communications director for Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group. "Broadband providers and others opposed to net neutrality are engaged in a coordinated effort to stop the FCC effort in its tracks. Arguments that net neutrality rules will stop telecom investments in networks are nonsense and insulting. All some industries do is threaten and bully. It's like they're saying, 'If we don't get what you want, then you're not going to get your network.' Telecom providers operated under network neutrality-like rules for more than 70 years and investment continued. Telecom providers and their allies have all the resources, Democrats and Republicans, that they've traditionally called upon, and it will obviously be incumbent on those of us who want a free and open and nondiscriminatory Internet to make the case."

The consumers should have the biggest say on what is blocked or can be viewed on their computers. The FCC should make sure nothing too manipulative is happening behind the scenes but the end result should be that everyday people should be able to have a say on what's blocked or isn't blocked just like they have a right to get an anti-virus protector for their computer. Competition between companies do create more jobs.

If huge companies and Government lawmakers don't agree with the FCC on this, then who knows what the rest of America will decide. Could it be that big corporations and lawmakers are just trying to remain powerful in the rights or will the FCC's new Net Neutrality rule really be problematic until of a problem solver? Only time will tell.