Secrets of the City

I’ve done video designed specifically for the Internet for work, in the hope that it might go viral, in some small way. The response didn’t exactly lit up the InterWebs.

One lesson learned: the more you try to push a viral video, the less likey it will work. It’s the goofy little clips like the dancing wedding and squirrel photo that work.

I’m amazed at the belief in parts of the P.R. world that “viral” is something you can actually influence (or promise to clients — see that extremely uncomfortable episode of Celebrity Apprentice featuring “ALL” detergent.)

With every video we put out, of course we hope it’ll go viral. But you can’t force it. Worst thing you can do is get all sneaky trying to put it out there. Neediness = Viral Repellant.

What was this vines video supposed to be “promoting” or directing people to?

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think anyone was supposed to believe this was real.

I linked it on Metblogs. The part I found interesting wasn’t the video, but the signs they say they are going to put up near MOA.

I said it over there and I’ll say it here. The PR push is working…How many new people have been exposed via Ed’s initial and your re-posting of this issue.

If I was in charge of that email blast…I would consider it a success.

You would be shocked what some of us believe in the P.R. world, Jeff.

Oh, yeah, I got one of these e-mails. And I put the link on my blog so I could tell the world about my ongoing sci-fi fantasy: plants reclaim urban centers and man/woman lives in the woods and stops shaving. I’m not sure if that’s what this PR guy had in mind when he contacted me. HA! Seriously, I have on average 20-30 views a day and it’s mostly people searching for animal porn.

But there’s no animal porn on my blog (unless you count the pic of my former dog’s junk hanging out).

dang

This is a marketing campaign for canned tomatoes. The vines on the billboard by the MOA will apparently keep growing in size over the next few weeks.

I’m amazed anybody is still pitching viral campaigns. You can’t make something go viral; they just do. And, when it comes out that something that succeeded in going viral was an ad, I sincerely doubt most people know or care what it was advertising. At worst it can backfire — the Internet is not famous for its love of being manipulated to move product.

Max: We PR types are often at the mercy of clients or bosses that come to us after seeing something like the dancing wedding video and say, “Hey, can you do something just like this to sell widgets? Because this is what I want!”

We try to offer clients/bosses good advice on what works and what doesn’t. but I have found it’s a rare client/boss who will listen.

Canned tomatoes make pretty good chili. Well, at least the PR/Ad firm is a legitimate business. I guess they’re just doing what they do. Like when snakes kill with their venom.

Snake Plissken kills with a nail-filled baseball bat.

And so does Kurt Russell!

Yeah I don’t see this as being that aggregious of course I didn’t get the email but from ed’s excerpt it came across as pretty tongue-in-cheek.

And again it is a posted topic on one of the top five mn blogs per newsbobber. Id say it is safely viral within the mn blogging community and that may be all they were shooting for.

Not all pr people are evil , not all online marketing is spammy and sales is not a four letter word.

-end marketing rant

Sales is a five letter word…

I saw the one on 494 today and wondered what it was. Had I been around the computer today I would have tweeted about it, asking if anyone knew what it was.

Had they just left well enough alone with people doing what I would have done, they would have achieved what it sounds like they intended to do.

I’m not going to criticize the PR outfit outright, but pushing to make it viral isn’t very impressive. To me, it shows a complete misunderstanding of what social media is and how it works. Anyone know what PR firm was pitching the wedding dance video?

Just because the secret’s out here doesn’t mean the rest of mainstream Minnesota is in on it yet. Sort of like being hip to The Beatles before they arrived in New York, or Elvis when the only broadcast performance he’d given was on The Louisiana Hayride.

Somebody will write it up in the newspaper or do a story on the TV news. Gosh, Jason. You could kill two birds with this Good Question: What is viral marketing and does it work?

Companies that sell viral videos and those that create viral videos both get paid.

This video may go viral, because:

1) the artist looks a bit like Jack Black

2) Don Selby is in it

3) The funky wallpaper is from DeRusha’s house.

“I’m amazed anybody is still pitching viral campaigns”

I don’t know that is what happened.

Did you hear the pitch they gave to their client?

I got the email and the word viral wasn’t mentioned once. Matter of fact to my knowledge the only place “viral” has been mentioned is here and on Ed’s blog.

“And, when it comes out that something that succeeded in going viral was an ad”

As for the email it seemed very much in line with the many PR emails I get every month, just a PR person doing there job and letting people know about stuff.

I think Ed is making an assertion that there was dishonesty that he just can’t back up and I’m a little confused at to why this post supports it.

Here’s the email, it’s pretty clear it’s an ad.
——

Hello.. I hope you are doing well. Say, as you look for unique items for your blog or for Met Blog, I thought this might be of interest.

I thought you might like this link to a video of vines crawling up the IDS tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3cYjgR8ZMw

In addition, there is a cool billboard going up near the Mall of America that is linked…

Over the next few weeks Minneapolis will be inundated with vines and growing great stuff in a teaser campaign

•a 3-D billboard with giant vines that just went up near the MOA that will keep “growing”. Photo is below.
•There are 140 feet of vines
•The leaves on the vine are 8 feet tall by 4 feet wide
•The video — which shows vines magically crawling up the IDS tower
•Minneapolis-based Clarity Coverdale Fury — http://www.claritycoverdalefury.com/ – created the campaign.

—–

Where is the deceit that Ed asserts? Was he really expecting “magic”?

I think Ed’s just trying to help the PR people of the world learn to cover there bases.

For the most part i don’t believe that the campaigns amatuerish execution has resulted in any net negative for the client…all the blowblack has been directed at the PR firms from what I am reading.

Dear god I hope I never write an email like that. Put another bullet in the chamber of the “If I ever do that, then” gun.

“campaigns amatuerish execution ”

What exactly was amateurish? Sending emails to bloggers, the cool billboards, the video?

It’s a PR company, that’s what they do.

I get PR emails just like it almost every week, so it’s not like this company is doing anything out of the ordinary for the industry.

“I think Ed’s just trying to help the PR people of the world learn to cover there bases”
Really? Then you have an innocence that is precious, keep that feeling.
I see a blog post that uses things out of context for self-aggrandizement. Typically calling someone a liar requires an onus of proof.

So I ask who is more dishonest, the PR company or Ed whom intentionally ommitted information (possibly to further his rant)?

It’s a viral ad. How else would you describe it? They call it a teaser campaign in the email — teaser campaign are fundamentally viral campaigns, in that they rely on people to get curious and spread the story by word-of-mouth.

I’m not certain that your assessment of Ed’s post — “I see a blog post that uses things out of context for self-aggrandizement.” — is significantly different than what you are critiquing Ed for. You can disagree with his assessment, but your statement about the reason he posted it makes a series of assumptions about Ed that are beneath this discussion.

Well lets break it down, I think Ed did a fairly decent take down but.

The Video’s CG is bush league, I am guessing they didn’t want to pony up the $150 or so an hour to get some 3dmax or Maya developer Yet they probably spent 30k on the billboard.

It looks as if it was meant to be tongue in cheek- but it doesn’t go nearly far enough to pull that off.

Like Ed posited why not get an established youtuber to upload the video or at least join and interact for a little while before uploading.

The line about the news/police line is completely unnecessary to the story line and does erode trust sort of.

No direction towards end product or message – the only trailhead we have is the tomato tags on youtube. -Is that enough to deliver a next action?

As an online marketer i think that Ed’s blog is invaluable as a tool to study potential miss-steps when crafting online marketing strategies. He might not like to hear that, but that’s exactly how I read it (pretty sure he wouldn’t mind as that’s what he does for a living). Most of that type of content used to live on technology evangelist but that blog seems to have been sacked and I know find it on his personal blog.

I’m leaning toward JACC on this. Actually, I’m on his side. It’s fine. I think they handled themselves professionally. I don’t believe there was an deception on the part of the agency and they disclosed, which is a lot.

Also, it’s a freakin’ tomato company that hired a very small agency – how much do you think they’ve got to spend on this a digital spot that’s not really going on TV?

Oh, disclosure, right…

I have been employed by the advertising/marketing/branding industry in the past.

I have no affiliation with this campaign and no problem disagreeing when companies/firms/agencies f’up (which often happens)

“I think Ed is making an assertion that there was dishonesty that he just can’t back up and I’m a little confused at to why this post supports it.”

Did you read the post? Ed’s complaint is that the video was uploaded to Youtube by a new user with the words “Shot this when I was shopping on Nicollet Mall in MPLS. Giant vines on the IDS Tower!! Whaaa??….The story from the news. I was about a block away until the cops put up the barriers.”

There’s nothing on the YouTube channel to indicate that this is an ad, or that it’s not supposed to be taken seriously, except the fact that the vines are obviously CGI. His question is, if they start of their campaign with a deception, why should we trust them when they later come out and say, oh, that was a viral ad, here’s the truth.

It’s a good question, and worth discussing, and your personal attack on Ed doesn’t undermine the question, but sort of trashes the discussion. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing that in the future.

There’s nothing on the YouTube channel to indicate that this is an ad, or that it’s not supposed to be taken seriously, except the fact that the vines are obviously CGI. His question is, if they start of their campaign with a deception, why should we trust them when they later come out and say, oh, that was a viral ad, here’s the truth.

Really? What are you being deceived by? What were you tricked into believing by not knowing exactly what the ad was for?

The agency notified the media and disclosed that they were some independent person making a funny little video, that’s all the disclosure you need.

It’s called a teaser. Movies. Books. Companies. All sorts of entities do teasers. Should they all disclose exactly what they’re for?

“Really? What are you being deceived by? What were you tricked into believing by not knowing exactly what the ad was for? ”

That there are vines growing on the IDS center, and that this is a real news event.

There is a discussion to be had about the ethics of viral advertising that uses an element of deception.

Here’s a few of the discussions that are already happening: http://www.helium.com/knowledge/226303-examples-of-viral-advertising
http://brandingmumbojumbo.com/wordpress/?p=732#more-732
http://www.slideshare.net/raidbet/top-10-viral-marketing-ethics-presentation
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B9849-4VRWNWJ-1&_user=616288&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1037146847&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000032378&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=616288&md5=f2d79a690f06dd9385d26d370c87942f

Etc.

@Max: Have to agree with your assessment. The approach by which the video was uploaded to YouTube is suspect, if only because there were certain un-truths used to magnify its importance.

Advice here from a rank amateur: Just upload the video as a demonstration of your firm’s abilities. People who think the work is creative/funny/clever/whatever will start the viral marketing for you based on what they see; not what you believe to be a clever marketing ploy.

I can remember a couple of clever agency-produced uploads to YouTube that caught my interest simply for the fact that they were NOT trying to advertise a client’s product but, instead, because they were creative productions. No hype; no deception. They were uploaded as demonstrations … but they also were subliminal marketing tools for both the agency and their client.

Really? What are you being deceived by? What were you tricked into believing by not knowing exactly what the ad was for?

@Bixby: I would think it’s deception to say “Shot this when I was shopping on Nicollet Mall in MPLS. Giant vines on the IDS Tower!! Whaaa??….The story from the news. I was about a block away until the cops put up the barriers.” when no such event happened.

Oh, sure. It’s harmless. No animals were harmed. Western civilization didn’t collapse. The US Mail was still delivered in a timely fashion. But three false claims were made: The person was shopping (riiiiiight), the “story” made “the news,” and police barriers were erected.

Such foolishness is what creates mistrust and makes people suspicious of the intent and motive behind the production.

I think it’s just a bit much to apply that standard to this story that is obviously false. If there were a chance that anyone would actually think that this is real, maybe but not in this case.

Whether or not people fall for it, I think the issue is that it may vause automatic distrust. Were I just to stumble onto it on YouTube, I wouldn’t think it was a real news story, but I would wonder why it was being promoted as such.

Not one comment on the quality of the tomatoes. The marketers are winning.

I for one welcome our building-climbing vine overlords.

A Video should not be called viral until it is viral. Until then it is just a video.

Is this what everybody is talking about?

The video we shot without a script (and it shows) at our 2007 State Fair exhibit only got 1,200 views, but I was happy with it at the time.

A guy in a stupid corn head got more views than I did. But unlike him, I refused to do any nude scenes.

“but sort of trashes the discussion. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing that in the future.”

The point Ed didn’t stumble upon this on Youtube, it was fully disclosed in an email.

I don’t think my “personal attack” on Ed is any more out of line than your and Ed’s assertion that this is some sort of nefarious attempt at a viral video, but it’s your website.

I find this concerning
Did you see that Dex guy? He self propogated! Talk about an attempt at being viral and frankly people can’t do that, so it’s dishonest.

Also, it’s a video by a phone company. If only someone hated phone companies they could really go after this fraud “Dex”

“The point Ed didn’t stumble upon this on Youtube, it was fully disclosed in an email.”

I don’t see what difference that makes, unless it is impossible to access that video except by email. Others will certainly stumble across the video without the benefit of the explanatory email.

And it would probably behoove you not to complain about otheres misrepresenting something and then just go ahead and misrepresent something. Nobody here described the video as nefarious. The question of whether a video like this might cause distrust doesn’t imply that the video itself is evil; merely misconceived.

Ed hates printed phone directories, not phone companies, David. He doesn’t throw cell phones off roofs. At least not yet.

“And it would probably behoove you not to complain about otheres misrepresenting something and then just go ahead and misrepresent something”

Kudos! Now if only this post and Ed’s post would have started at that point this entire conversation probably would not have happened.

Out of curiosity, should I start out every post with a comment that the subject of the post it not to be understood as being nefarious? Just in case you read that in?

Or perhaps I’m misreading you. It’s a bit hard to parse what that last comment meant; its meaning is buried beneath a snarl and sarcasm. I wonder if you might consider a less caustic way to communicate?

@Bob – Did you see how that Dex guy could split like he was in the Matrix? That’s just wrong, I’m throwing my cell phone off the roof right now.

@Max – That’d be nice. Especially if you’re linking to something that is ommissive and misleading. Also, less butter on my muffins.

You haven’t really made a clear case that anything is ommisive or misleading, though; as I said above, Ed’s complaint isn’t that he misundertsood the nature of the video, it’s that others, stumbling across it, might.

Let’s pretend that Ed didn’t get the email, but instead just discovered it on YouTube. Are his criticisms now valid, or worth discussing, rather than being endlessly derailed by this side-discussion of “if you have the email, there’s no question of what you’re seeing.”

Hey there,
I’m wondering when those giant tomatoes are gonna get picked. I could use the lycopene to cure my bowling bowl sized prostate. Gotta pee all the time now.

“I wonder if you might consider a less caustic way to communicate?”

I thought I was doing a wonderful job of picking up the tone of this post’s title and Ed’s post.

Or perhaps I’m misreading you.

Let’s see if I understand, your concern is that this video could be taken out of context thus causing mistrust. Fair enough.
Yet, you promote Ed’s post which intentionally took the video out of context? I mean, he did get the email. You read the email I posted, it’s pretty clear and not deceptive in the least.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s your website.

Much of life and what is done and said can cause distrust or ill will if taken out of context, I fail to see the value of Ed’s post.

Yeah, I’m done with this part of the discussion. I can only assume you haven’t read or understood my responses, or Ed’s original post, and you’ve derailed this discussion enough.

“Let’s pretend that Ed didn’t get the email, but instead just discovered it on YouTube”

I can’t speak for Ed, but I can speak for me. I’d think, what an odd video and what terrible CGI.

Which is my in the Metblogs post I included more of the email, for a little context. I’ll bet the billboards are cool.

Max – I’ve read Ed’s post and your responses, my comprehension is fine thank you, I just don’t agree.

Sending an e-mail to a blogger trying to push a viral video is very common, and I have no problem with it.

The BS on the YouTube page is horrible. When I first heard about the vine video, I thought it was real. I figured some marketers put vines on the IDS. I didn’t watch the video, because I didn’t really care.

I like viral/edgy campaigns. I don’t like videos of things that aren’t real, when they’re pretending to be real.

As for doing a Good Question about how a video goes viral, why that’s a great idea!

@Jason: LOL. Pwned. Guess I should be watching you ALL THE TIME!

It’s cool, noods. I only watch me about twice a week.

To all of you minimizing the deception aspect of this. I see you’re all PR/ad people who are more attuned to what may be advertising, but as someone who has been in investment banking his whole life, I didn’t have that advantage. After a friend posted the video to Facebook, I went to CNN and the Strib to get coverage of the event. For a while, I thought it was like the tornado which first broke on Twitter, but after a few hours I became convinced that the media and government were blacking out the story for fear of mass panic.

It wasn’t until I found this thread that I discovered the footage was “computer generated.” Wow, do I feel like a fool.

Well, I still feel stupid, Jason.

But in a GOOD way.

@Erik: Yup, that’s the crux of the matter: Deception does not build trust. Anytime.

@Erik – You thought that video was real *and* your an investment banker?

Horrifying.

@Erik – You thought that video was real *and* your an investment banker? Horrifying.

Maybe not so horrifying.

Erik sees the video, which was accompanied by comments like “on the news” and “police barriers.” Concern, or simple curiosity, leads him to seek out more information.

What’s so horrifying about someone who is seeking an answer?

As an investment banker, I would think it’s part of his job — and training — to explain things, and the effects that events have on investments. (That’s not to say an IDS-climbing vine will have the butterfly effect increasing the price of oil or produce a storm in the Philippines.)

Erik, at least, sought out an explanation on his own initiative. I’d rather have independent thinkers working on my behalf than I would robot drones who only do what they’re told and who have no sense of curiosity.

There really no stupid questions. Just stupid people who have no impulse to ask questions.

We’ve all grown distrustful of authority (wrt Erik’s concern of a news blackout) because we have been lied to by people who see no ethical conflict in telling bald-faced lies — especially if it means they get what they want.

Whether it’s phony WMDs in Iraq or the “news” that downtown streets were barricaded because of a computer-generated image wrapping itself around one of the tallest buildings in the Upper Midwest, deception cheapens the truth. When our leaders, and associated media at all levels, feel the only way they can manipulate us is to tell us a blatant or hyperbolic lie — whether it leads us to war or leads us to the cereal aisle — something is very wrong with our society.

Your attitude, anonymous g, does not help the matter.

I’m sorry, did an i-banker just try to call out ad/pr people for deception? Hi-larious.

By the way, Erik, tomorrow in the unemployment line is a potluck. I’m bringing cookies. I believe finance people are supposed to bring entrees.

I didn’t miss the irony there, either.

But noodles, in general, there are stupid questions. Sometimes asked by stupid people. And there are a lot of stupid people.

No. there are alot of stupid people.

The only stupid question is the one you don’t ask. And shouldn’t ask. Because it’s that stupid.

Yay! Are we playing the stereotype game now? Whose calling sides?

It sounds to me like Erik was creatively saying that only an idiot would think that was an actual news story, which is a fair point. It says a lot about what the PR firm thinks of its client’s target market.

Yes, grote, there are. I was holding back. Good grief, there are a fuckload of stupid people.

Fucking War of the Worlds.  We’re devolving.  Bring back the radio!

I haven’t read through all the comments thoroughly. I’ll add that I got pretty much the same version of the email that JACC did — entitled “Viral of Vines on IDS, Board at Mall of America” except that mine did say “I thought you might like this link to a viral video of vines crawling up the IDS tower.” That word “viral” was in there twice.

I posted it because I was feeling lazy and I had nothing else (not requiring thought) to put up that day. I also pointed out in the post that calling it a viral video was stupid, and I said that same thing when responding to PR dude (and he acknowledged that it was incorrect to call them viral and said he wouldn’t call them viral going forward). So I’m assuming any subsequent emails he sent purposely had “viral” removed.

Looks like I neither helped nor hurt the cause.

video # 2 is up.

Posted by another user that is newly registered. Coolkiddluke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxkH-pvARF4

Still no traction. I wonder what the timeframe of this campaign from concept to execution is, I hope really short cause otherwise the team has no excuse for not trying to “grow” a handful of youtube accounts.

The PR firm once again claimed that this was on the news. To me, they’re saying, “We created something of questionable intrigue, so we’re going to lie to make it seem more interesting than it is. Kids will help us lie.”

Ed what’s your definition of “on the news” does that mean 4,5, 9 or 11…some people might claim being posted right here or anywhere on the blogosphere as being “on the news”

I just don’t get your beef?

Are you preparing a boycott of canned tomatoes?

My only beef is with the execution. I haven’t seen the billboard but based on the description I would guess they have at least 30k into it alone…yet the CG is horrible and they spent no time cultivating seed youtube accounts.

Looks like there’s something on the strib homepage in the form of banner ads.

@ryanl, I don’t care what the product is. The deception bothers me, and I’m surprised to see the StarTribune playing such a prominent role in contributing to it through the ad format they ran on their website’s homepage.

Semantically, I think something being newsworthy would mean something actually happened which warranted being discussed.

Agreed. It’s the execution.

Yeah the strib ad was questionable. It seemed like me that they tuned the bright red down to more of a burgundy after a bit. I guess when your starving its hard to turn a big meal away.

If you guys think that using fictitious characters or creating viral videos sell products is wrong/unethical/poor execution, then you apparently don’t know much about advertising or social media. There’s loads of examples of these, but the only one I need mention is the Erberts & Gerberts Candle Cannon. It was created by a Minneapolis ad agency to be viral, and was successful.

You seem to be simultaneously worried about the campaign’s CQ quality and “deceptive” practices, which is kind of oxymoronic. Anyone who sees the video can see that it is fake. It’s meant to be fake, it’s meant to be clearly fictitious. I think it goes without saying that the purpose is to get people interested, to get them to investigate the matter. It is creating an experience that the consumer can be involved in. Isn’t that what social media is all about? Let’s say they can’t figure out that it’s for a certain brand of canned tomatoes, well, hopefully, when they see/hear about the billboard they will put two and two together. Thus, not only will they remember that brand name, they may even be tempted to try it out. Look at that, the two purposes of advertising!

To be worried that people might not realize it isn’t real, well that’s just dumb. If anyone actually saw (or even HEARD about) the video and still thought it was real, well then they probably aren’t smart enough to be opening cans of tomatoes and aren’t in the target market anyway.

I expect (and sincerely hope) that Erik’s post was sarcastic and meant to illuminate the ridiculousness of your claiming people would be offended by this “deception”. I mean, really? He honestly thought there were actually giant vines growing on the IDS tower, and then when he couldn’t find it online he automatically assumed there was huge government cover up? Wow.

Oh, and btw, a simple Google search of “giant vines ids” gets you the videos and blog posts. If he had actually tried looking for information for hours and had somehow glossed over that, then he needs to learn how to use the internets.

Nobody said creating fictitious characters was the problem, and, from the sounds of things, you seem to think the reason this wasn’t unethical is because nobody could mistakenly think it’s actual news.

I’ve come to the conclusion that my problem with viral advertising is larger than a simple question of “is it honest or isn’t it?” My problem is that it attempts to use a genuine Web phenomenon — that of short, amateurishly shot videos that suddenly go viral — and tries to turn it into a mechanism for pushing product. And it’s not super-up-front about it — whether or not you might mistake this for a real news story, there’s nothing on it to indicate that it’s an ad. And t me, that’s a bit like getting a letter from a friend that suddenly starts pitching a pyramid scheme, or going to a party and having the host suddenly try to sell candles, or getting an email that seems to be a friend and discovering it is Russian spam. It’s not terrifically far removed from the comment spammers we get on this site, who pop in with total non-comments pretending to be comments (”Really nice site! Good discussion!”) and the paste in a bunch of links. I think it’s essentially manipulative, and I think you risk getting negative or ambivalent feedback as a result — and this thread has shown examples of that.

If you guys think that using fictitious characters or creating viral videos sell products is wrong/unethical/poor execution, then you apparently don’t know much about advertising or social media.

Doesn’t anyone read anymore? This is not what the discussion is about, Seth. It’s about someone LYING multiple times about an “event” in the hope that their video would go viral.

The lying parts included 1) making the claim that the vine climbers were real, 2) that the event was broadcast on the news, and 3) that they had no intention of misleading anyone.

This is not the same as getting 9 out of 10 bogus doctors to agree that Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco, or that if Ted Kennedy had been driving a VW Beetle in 1969 he’d be President today.

This is more akin to General Mills, even when they know that they cannot scientifically confirm the data, making a bogus health-benefit claim about Cheerios.

I think it’s essentially manipulative, and I think you risk getting negative or ambivalent feedback as a result — and this thread has shown examples of that.

Max, I wouldn’t even classify this as manipulative. This was just a bad job of getting “buzz” generated. Under different circumstances (e.g. if it’s release and nurturing had been better handled), it might well have developed into something other than a poor imitation of “The Blair Witch Project” marketing/manipulation.

@ seth wouldn’t it be nice if a PR campaign actually drove traffic/exposure back to the client…hey that’s a novel idea, yet the original video makes no mention of client not even in the youtube tags.

“Oh, and btw, a simple Google search of “giant vines ids” gets you the videos and blog posts.”

-again I see a lot of results not one of which links the campaign to client (nice serp population there eh?)

This campaign needs way more trailheads.

Behold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv_IyfIjEBc

I sit nice and squarely in Switzerland on this – I see both sides.

Yeah I saw that one. Way to wait till the third video for the big reveal cause youtube/internet viewers are really know for their patience.

And still not a single tag or linkback for Red Gold????

Well, I don’t know that making people wait is horrible.

I guess if it was executed in a way that created a fun buzz rather than a “they’re big fat liars-no they’re not-yes they are” debate, it might have worked.

@Cat: That’s the first of the three uploads I’ve seen that even shows the product. That percentage might be considered Hall of Fame material in baseball but in advertising …? Not so much.

Hmmm… I thought that was the point of a teaser campaign. To get consumers interested in the “reveal.”

They’ve done the billboards in a few other markets with some success, it appears.

It brings to mind the “Don’t Vote” billboards that KDWB did a few years ago or so.

I thought that was the point of a teaser campaign. To get consumers interested in the “reveal.”

There are better ways of doing that. Just sayin’.

It brings to mind the “Don’t Vote” billboards that KDWB did a few years ago or so.

Apples and oranges, Cat. There are good, and bad, methods for generating public “buzz.”

Noods: I used the Don’t Vote campaign as an example of advertising taking a few weeks before anyone knew what the campaign was all about. I don’t think the vids for the tomatoes are good, just that it was part of a larger teaser campaign.

As with a lot of internets related advertising, I think companies are just trying to figure it all out. Sure, there are a lot of missteps, but it’s such a hit or miss thing as no one really knows what’s going to catch on.

But, just because there are gaffs, I don’t want companies to quit trying to figure it out.

I honestly cannot understand your issue with the “deception”. Where did they make the claim that it was real? And how can you honestly think that anyone who sees that video might think it’s real? Do you think that people surfing YouTube expect everything they see to be real? Maybe if it’s the very first video they’ve seen on YouTube…

@Max Sparber I think the negative publicity this is getting is because people here are blowing a minor issue out of proportion. So, you’re saying that it is manipulative because they don’t say it is an advertisement? Yes, the YouTube site doesn’t say it’s an ad. But wouldn’t that detract from the “fun” of the video? I would assume that most of the traffic this gets is from the Star Tribune website, and it clearly says “Advertisement” on there.

Ads are everywhere, and the vast majority don’t disclaim that they’re ads. We only recognize them for ads because those methods of advertisement (i.e. billboards, commercials, print, etc.) have been around for a while. Sure, a guy who has no experience with modern civilization might think the first time he sees a Tide commercial that it’s just some nice lady telling him the best way to get stains out of his clothes. But if he sits around for another 30 seconds he’s going to realize that a different nice lady says Cheer is the best, and that he should probably try to figure it out himself. It’s a whimsical notion that giant vines can suddenly grow 50+ stories, I think that should be disclaimer enough. Do you not watch/read/listen to anything that makes any mention of brand names because it’s disguised advertising? Are you worried that when people turn on their TVs and see a cop show depicting a shootout in Manhattan they’ll think it’s real? Or that when they open a book and read about a Catholic conspiracy they’ll think it’s real? Where do you draw the line?

@noodleman “Doesn’t anyone read anymore?” Well, if you had read beyond the first 3 sentences of my post, you would have seen that I addressed that issue. And if you had actually read the text around the videos, you would see that nowhere does it claim to be “real”, nor do they claim to have not had the intent of “misleading” anyone. So, by process of elimination, your only issue is that it claimed to be on the news. While that is hardly malicious, it could easily be argued that it is on the news, since it’s on this blog. And other blogs. Oh, and on the Star Tribune website. Do you automatically assume that everything you see on a screen is real? Is it a problem for you to distinguish between reality and fiction without having a disclaimer beforehand?

@ryanl It’s a teaser. I’m not here to argue the quality of the campaign’s execution, I’m just saying it’s over-the-top ridiculous to call this video out because people might mistake it as real.

“And how can you honestly think that anyone who sees that video might think it’s real?”

I doubt it. It doesn’t mean that they didn’t promote it as though it were a real newscast, which is the subject of this ethical discussion.

“nd if you had actually read the text around the videos, you would see that nowhere does it claim to be “real”, nor do they claim to have not had the intent of “misleading” anyone.”

I don’t know what you’re reading, but on the YouTube page there’s quite an explicit statement saying that this is an actual video. We can’t have any discussion at all when you are making claims that have already been addressed in this discussion, ignoring them and, somehow, also managing to contradict them.

@seth, I mention the ads in the comments on The Deets as an example of how people can create buzz without deceiving people. E&G had a birthday and their PR firm created a fun video that generated buzz without lying about what it was.

They didn’t do anything to violate the public’s trust in an attempt to get people to pay attention. Instead, they celebrated a significant milestone in a creative enough way to warrant positive responses from viewers.

I used the Don’t Vote campaign as an example of advertising taking a few weeks before anyone knew what the campaign was all about.

Ah! I understand now. Sorry for the mix-up, Cat.

Ads are everywhere, and the vast majority don’t disclaim that they’re ads.

Seth, we aren’t discussing the video’s validity as an advertisement. We have, in fact, never doubted it was an advertisement in the first place, and I don’t think we tend to be an overly anti-ad crowd around here. However, people have had a problem with the manner by which the video was marketed — an “news” or otherwise. That has been the focus of this discussion.

@cat sorry i wasn’t around for the don’t vote campaign…I assume that it was an election year?

If so I can see how that message could stir some conversation and speculation.

Is this vine campaign supposed design to capitalize on the poor tomato growing season we had this year?

Maybe its the fact that it’s growing so rapidly in this weather?

Maybe instead of growing tow-maters the billboard is really to introduce Snow-maters?

Here’s the big difference between “Don’t Vote” and “Creeping Tomatoes:”

Don’t Vote was a legitimate news story. The billboards went up, people and the press got curious, and stories were written.

On the other hand, the Creeping Tomatoes video was uploaded accompanied by a claim that it had already seen press coverage.

One generated buzz the old-fashioned way. The other sought to generate buzz by making an ethically-challenged claim.

Looks like they’re hitting Chicago now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqHLwMYtpYU

here is a user called gianttomatovines as well
http://www.youtube.com/user/GiantTomatoVines

lame