Viral Marketing.

Anyone who actively uses social media is exposed to viral marketing whether they are cognizant of it or not. We've all seen it: Scrolling through our feeds on whatever platform, and we come across content that was not originally created by one of our connections, but shared by them. They encountered someone else's content online and enjoyed it so much that they felt the need to share it with the world on their own social platform. This is viral marketing. As we discussed in class, viral marketing exists to encourage others to pass it along. The consumer does the heavy lifting so the company does not have to. It is a smart way to cut corners and save advertising costs, but must be executed in a timely way that creates a successful campaign rather than a dud.

A key component of viral marketing is creating a conversation. I've seen viral marketing used in a unique way among late night talk shows recently. Today, it is all the rage for Hollywood to reboot and revive older, nostalgic film properties. As prime examples, two of this year's biggest hits at the movies will be Jurassic World and Star Wars Episode VII, both resurgences of older franchises. They click with audiences because they ignite fond memories of childhood for older viewers and the opportunity to create new childhood memories for the younger generation. We see this on television, as well. Older shows are being brought back in different forms, like The Muppets and Fuller House. How does this relate to viral marketing and late night talk shows? Well, seeing the fondness that the public currently has for nostalgic reboots, several late night talk shows are combining that love for old franchises with the power of viral marketing to create immediately widespread advertisements for their shows. Jimmy Kimmel reunited the cast of Friends for a skit on his show last year. Of course something like this is going to go viral---everyone will want to share the playback video of the reunion of the long-lost cast of one of their favorite old shows, and this creates instant exposure for Jimmy Kimmel's show. Jimmy Fallon does this, as well. Just last month he had a skit of the popular '90s Nickelodeon movie Good Burger. His skit reunited Kenan Thompson and Kel Mitchel for the first time ever. Of course something as special as this, especially to '90s Nickelodeon viewers who are now all grown up, is going to create a viral surge. It creates a conversation as everyone chimes in of how much they used to love Kenan and Kel and prompt them to share the video so that others can enjoy it for their own nostalgia.

This is much different from even ten years ago, when YouTube was not mainstream and these same late night talk shows might strategize their marketing in a radically different way. Traditional methods such as billboards, commercials, and magazine/newspaper ads were more crucial to spreading the word about the shows. That is not to say that these outlets are not still used today, but they are certainly used to a lesser degree with viral marketing tossed into the mix alongside them. To me, it is fascinating to see the way companies will creatively push the boundaries of their marketing to cultivate something intended to go viral.

Fair Use.

An artist is entitled to his or her work. As the creator of a work of art, they (or a company) has creative control over its use, but as we saw in the Remix documentary, fair use is a challenging subject to navigate through.

I thought it was interesting in the documentary how the filmmaker mentioned the parallel between editing mash-up music and writing a research paper. In a research paper, the author can paraphrase and quote someone else's work all day long as long as they use proper academic citations. The original "artist" is credited for their work, but the new author is still allowed to incorporate that first work to create something new, no questions asked. It is considered ethical and even admirable. The same is not true when it comes to multimedia. The original owner is very possessive of the material and when it is used without permission by another artist, such as Girl Talk, it becomes an issue of copyright infringement.

However, there can sometimes be a distinction between the owner and the artist of the work. A record label be more inclined to want to uphold copyright law to uphold a legal standard, while an artist may not care at all. I watched a YouTube video last week from someone whose videos have gone viral, Todrick Hall. His latest video was a music compilation of Taylor Swift songs. He mashed up many of Swift's hits into an a capella rendition that created a new medley. It got millions of views, and eventually he got a compliment on Twitter from Taylor Swift herself. In that case, Hall probably did not have permission to use Swift's music, but Swift did not mind. In reality, the video just boosts the popularity of her songs anyway. Additionally, Hall does not sell the track as an MP3. It's just a video. He gets money from advertisements on his videos, yes, but not directly from selling any copy of the medley. The real question is: Does Swift's record label mind, and would they bother to do anything?

This is somewhat of a stretch, but a similar technique can be seen in reporting. I love theme parks, and many of the websites I frequent report on news and construction updates from theme parks around the country. Many of these sites are not owned by the theme park companies, but rather passionate enthusiasts. The more popular websites' owners have made a career out of updating their sites, yet their success would be obsolete without the existence of those theme parks. The webmasters are making money off of advertisements on their sites and the use of their services by users. The theme parks get nothing directly from these profits. However, one could argue that these unofficial websites still direct more online users to want to visit the theme parks anyway. So while the webmasters aren't giving any money to the parks, the parks still get more money because of the free publicity. It acts in a cyclical way, despite the fact that technically there might be some fair use issues at play. Neither side will ever decide to do anything about it, though, because they both benefit from the other.