Jennifer Aniston's Viral Sex Tape

Hope that title got your attention, as does Smart Water. By now you might have seen the new 3 minute short-form video from Smart Water featuring their new spokeswoman Jen Aniston. If not, you can see it here with Mashable's commentary: http://mashable.com/2011/03/07/jennifer-aniston-sex-tape-viral/

The subject of "viral videos" is one that hinges on the absurd, more than often than not. Every agency person jokes that clients simply ask "make me a viral video" or "get some viral for this video we made." While clients don't understand why some things reach zeitgeist level and others simply don't. It's the same conversation we all had with our parents about what defines "cool." If you think you're cool, you're not. If you don't care, suddenly you're cool and there is simply no way of knowing if something is cool until you release it to the world and they determine it to be "cool."

So what Smart Water has decidedly done is try to go "meta" on the whole concept. Let's make fun of viral videos, while building one ourselves. They even went as far to include the "internet geeks" that apparently came up with the concept, or otherwise determine what is "cool" online.

It's very easy to poke fun at this video, and I believe that's what Smart Water wants us to do, but there are two distinct strategies that I think make this a smart play - no pun intended.

First off, they had fun with their brand. If you want to reach the highly-coveted 18-34 demographic you need to do something different, you need to break through. One thing about this segment is that their bullshit detectors are highly evolved. They can sniff out advertising or masked advertising from the onset. So be real, be upfront and make fun of yourself as a marketer. Instead of trying to come up with the next brilliant viral video idea, instead of doing "what Old Spice did," they turned the model on it's head and simultaneously made fun of all of the viral video stunts, as well as themselves. Mixing in Jennifer Aniston, simply means that you have added credibility and/or watchability to this creative execution.

The second strategy or aspect to this execution that I absolutely love is that it's 3 minutes long. Brands need to stop producing TV spots. I'll say that again, please stop building TV spots! TV is a vehicle and a great and powerful one, for delivering a creative idea or platform. Much like mobile, the web, billboards and radio, TV is a vehicle. When the most creative of all creative shops stop building TV spots and start working towards creative experiences, everyone (clients, maketers, agencies, consumers, everyone) will be more engaged and entertained by advertising. In the coming days, I'm sure we will see some incarnation of this 3-minute piece turned into a :30 spot, or maybe we won't. Maybe the smart people at Smart Water have done their research and know how to reach the highly-elusive 18-34 year old target. That's the beauty of building towards a creative experience versus building ads. You then have the choice to cut a TV spot, distribute online, push through traditional print or even feature on a billboard.

My Take: As one of the geeky internet guys in the video, I have to say that I approve of this effort. It's slightly bold, slightly cheesey and completely watchable. In the end, that's what will drive virality, is it something that I would watch again and ultimately tell others to do the same.

Youtube killed the hollywood studio?

Okay, well that is a long way away, you can see the beginnings of such a movement through Youtube's latest entertainment push. Youtube is outright approaching celebrities to create their own branded channels, and fill them with short-form (3 minute) video. What's more, Google/Youtube is offering to back these branded channels, forfeiting all property rights to the artist/celebrity and build a shared-revenue model based off of the advertising sold within the channels.

Okay, but wasn't this always available? Well yes, but it's harder to lure any talent to the "mischievous cats and groin shots hub" without putting up some money. Youtube is doing that, and stating that they will back celebrities to the tune of $5MM per channel. Wow, that ought to get the will.i.am, @aplusk and Seacrests of the world interested, right?

If fact those three are interested, but why wouldn't more celebrities be into such an offering? At John Battelle's Signal LA conference will.i.am stated that himself, Ashton Kutcher and Ryan Seacrest were the only celebrities that are thinking about new technology and how it will change the performances, videos and any artistic expression that they do in the future. Now that is probably an exaggeration, but with a movement towards connecting fans and celebrities online, it seems that more and more actors, musicians, athletes and artists should be embracing this avenue.

We see it on Twitter already, that's probably the easiest one for celebrities to embrace. Especially those that monetize themselves through services like Ad.ly. We see it on Vevo, where musicians can continue to see big numbers of viewers for their expensive video productions online. We also see it through a number of blogs, fan pages and even b-roll shoots. So it is happening, and this is what Youtube is banking on right now. They have the proven platform, they have the numbers and now they just need the killer content. It's no surprise that Youtube is now competing with cable and network tv in a lean-back environment within a consumer's living room. There is a real need to make Youtube a destination among the masses, and not just a viral "did you see this" pass-along experience. I think they're hoping that attracting real celebrities and artists to the platform will do just that.

My Take: Bringing celebrities closer to the fans that ultimately make them celebrities, is a growing trend. Maybe Aston Kutcher saw it first, but there are many, many more that would like to build such a connection with their fans, and continue to turn a profit while doing so.

Incepplications

Read about this, this morning and wanted to comment since I think it's a bold move by Warner. If you haven't read, Warner Studios has offered up "app editions" of The Dark Knight and Inception for $9.99 and $11.99 respectfully. Clearly a move to bypass the iTunes store and control more of the profit, Warner has taken a major step forward ahead of all the other studios. In addition to just the movie, the app offers full functionality with behind the scenes extras, social extensions and what I believe to be the best feature - airplay compatability (enabling viewing on your home TV via wifi). Since you don't always want to watch a movie on your iphone...or ever.

Your move Apple? Warner certainly has taken a step that might make Apple rethink things, but this model is of course not that scalable. You can't simply convert every movie into an app, and add all of these extras and extensions. The price point also brings up an issue, are people willing to pay for the "enhanced" app version of a movie for $12?

Or is it scalable? Warner obviously didn't make this move without considering how their failing DVD business would be affected. If they are offering digital versions for less than the physical copy and they can be used across a number of screens, isn't that the promise of the DVD window moving forward?

Another interesting angle is the movie studio becoming a distribution arm unto itself? Will people start to see the studio as more of a brand, and one that distributes the movies that they love? The only studios that currently owns its brand is Disney, and they own the only other one in Pixar. 9 out of 10 moviegoers wouldn't even be able to tell you that Warner made and marketed Inception, because to this point it hasn't been a story they needed to tell. People come out to see the stars, the plot and maybe the director/producer (Nolan helps) - but never to see something that was made by Warner Brothers.

My Take: I think you will see other studios follow suit, and just like Warner they will start with the biggest box office movies and try to build revenue above what they have realized through the box office, DVD and VOD. Whether this becomes a new window for studios, we will have to see but I do think it represents a possible future for post-box office release.

Tablets, tablets everywhere

It's a tablet explosion! 30+ devices are supposed to hit the market this year, 30! I didn't know there were even 30 tech developers capable of building one. What does that mean, well it means a couple things but mainly it means over-saturation and consumer confusion. While watching the Grammy's last night I saw the HP execution bumpers that introduced what was "coming up" before heading to commercial. I didn't see the HP logo until the 3rd time through, though. All I saw was an iPad. That's what tablets look like when you see them, they look like the first and most popular version of what it represents.

Grammy's side note: Cee-Lo is amazing, but I think people love him because he just has so much fun on stage. That's what live entertainment is all about. Congratulations are also in order for Arcade Fire! To think I knew you back when you were The Arcade Fire, just two years ago. The Suburbs is a great album though, and I love seeing indie musicians make it big - even if it means the ticket prices go up.

How are consumers making decisions on tablets, that's what we want to ask ourselves as advertisers? Is it possible to realize any scale with just one tablet, if it's not the iPad? Will a dominant operating system help deliver scale, and is Android that operating system? Many questions to ponder as we watch these 30 tablets come across our TV and Digital screens in the coming months.

For me, I'd like to know how publishers and mainly the newspaper and magazine publishers plan to build long-term strategies. I think we've seen enough to know that the fragmentation that existed in magazines, has been replaced by even more fragmentation online. There really isn't enough room for all the magazine publishers to all of a sudden become digital or mobile destination and also deliver scalable audiences.

So, something has to give and we will learn a great deal over the next 3 months about what model consumers are going to support. Whether it be a year long subscription, a pay per issue or a completely ad-supported free to consumers model.

Remember when the iPad came out and everyone was considering what it replaces? Is it a bigger iPhone, or does it take the place of your laptop? Is this something that consumers need or have demanded? I'm pretty sure the consensus was that it wasn't, yet now we have 30 technology developers following Apple into the market.

My Take: We will see a major shakeout and merging (purchasing) across the publisher community. In the end, we will see the larger publishers lean upon the tried and true ad-supported model. There is room for a subscription model as well, but will so many other options for news and entertainment, it will be tough to scale such an option against a mass audience.

Tweets for Sale

According to a number of reports, Google and Facebook have both approached Twitter looking to buy the ever-expanding micro-blog site. It's pretty amazing that Twitter has come this far, this fast, although we tend to just expect it from companies these days. I still remember when Twitter surfaced, well we all do because it was four years ago. Everyone, and I mean everyone, wrote it off as just status updates from Facebook. I remember hearing, "Why do we need a company that just delivers Facebook posts?"

Well that company that just delivers Facebook posts now has a valuation near $10B. But everyone has to be asking themselves, why? First, we know that Twitter is much more than a micro-blog site, it's much more than Khardasian updates on shoes, Ochocinco smack talk and politicians selling books. What Twitter has a lot of is data. Not as much as Google, but it's different. Twitter has conversations, thoughts and opinions - it's real language. It's also a search database waiting to be tapped. Think about it, and not a mid-campaign optimization/listen to the buzz kind of way that marketers are trying to do right now. But next year, looking back at Super Bowl, what were people talking about, what were they saying? Minute by minute conversations, thoughts and opinions - a good number were even around the brands that tried to capture attention during the mega-event. That's where the value lies, that's what marketers should be thinking about tapping into and that is why Google and Facebook want it.

MyTake: Twitter isn't for sale and even if it was, there are maybe 3 or 4 companies that could actually buy it at this point. They are just starting to realize the scale that they need to become a major research and real-time data provider. We're going to see a lot more from Twitter before we see a lot less.

Where it began

Frustrated in a position that conceals, restricts and ultimately squashes any innovative thought, I vow to emerge. I don't know how long this will last, but I know that I love this digital industry we have built and I want to continue moving it forward. I love the people, I love the pace and I love the constant challenge of just trying to stay ahead of the "next big idea." The one thing that has remained constant during my 12 years in digital media & marketing, is my undying thirst for knowledge. The feeling of checking the phone, ipad or laptop in the morning and seeing what emerging trends have surfaced, what new company has decided to launch a social platform and which marketer has declared this, finally, is "the year of mobile." So that's what I will do - report on the reports, offer up agency and advertiser views on trends/news and generally give my take.

- Handsome Pete