I am a Ukrainian. The contradictions of marketing a real guerrilla.

There is something perversely contradictory about feeling manipulated for a good cause. 

Did I watch this video when so many posted it? Yes I did. Did I share it? Of course I did. The situation in Ukraine is just horrible and unacceptable. But is this the only reason I shared it? Perhaps not. I was, just like thousands of others, taken by the video for all the same reasons videos go viral. What do I mean?

Try, if you are able - and I know it's not easy - to put aside what is actually and tragically happening in Ukraine. Now look at the video again. You will see a very pretty girl, real sounds of 'battle', with a low drone music. You will see shots of violent clashes and you will hear her talking - with a broken voice - about wanting to be free. All the ingredients are there. 'Guerrilla marketing'. Literally.

And now bring back in what is going on in Kiev. I challenge anyone, after having read and seen the news in the last couple of days and weeks and having seen this video on any social network, to then decide not to share it.

But I am wondering: notwithstanding the fact that what is going on in Ukraine is far, far more important than any attempts at using known techniques to get our attention, why do I have a deep sense of unease at the thought that had it been a normal looking, 50 year-old, unemployed man telling me those same things, I might not have shared it? Isn't it a good thing to use all available means to get people interested in what is happening on the EU's doorstep? On the other hand, am I really so sure that the video of the 50 year-old Ukrainian would not have gone as viral?

Difficult questions, that will require a lot more thought before getting a decent answer. And hopefully, by then, the pretty young girl - and the 50 year-old unemployed man - will have returned home as Timoshenko has been released and a new government and early elections appear on the horizon.

A ridiculous Bill Gates: viral or just counter-productive?

If you are a Twitter user I am pretty sure you will have seen at least one of the many Bill Gates-sponsored tweets on his third annual letter 'Gatesletter.com' - I have seen the digital version but there is a printed one too.  Anyway, I have seen one of such tweets at least 3 times in one day (and I did not spend that whole day on Twitter).

Why am I writing about this? Because it's a marvellous example of a number of things:

1) I don't even want to know how much money it cost to have a Tweet so widely and frequently distributed for a whole day, and surely money is not really an issue for Bill Gates. But it's a fact that I saw it, opened it and read it which I might not have done had it not appeared on Twitter. So, how shall I put it in a very original way? Money talks and....pays.

2) The letter - the digital one at least - is very well done. You can disagree with the content (Gates and his wife Melinda are trying to take apart three myths they claim block progress for the poor) but the way in which the arguments are presented is incredibly clear and attractive. There are beautiful graphics, video interviews and great photos - I particularly like the ones comparing big cities decades ago with how they look today. It's super easy to share it, in part or as a whole, to move from one section to another and you can read it in six different languages. True, it's quite a long letter, partly because it  has all these other elements that make it longer, but partly because it does take some time to debunk myths. So, it looks good and it reads well. Quality.... pays.

3) Towards the end of each 'torn apart' myth, there is an ingenious idea. You are asked to vote on whether you agree or disagree with the arguments you have just read/heard/seen. In sum, interactivity and feedback all in one. A smart way of checking whether the messages work and to allow the Foundation to listen and adapt. Understanding ....pays.

3) On top of spamming everyone on Twitter, Bill Gates has gone on TV to promote the letter. Nothing bizarre about that. I saw him on NBC's 'Late Night with Jimmy Fallon' and I do admire the fact that he is giving to charity so much of what he earns. He came across as a nice and clever man, a good talker and surely a true believer in the power of aid. But towards the end of the interview, there was a bit that left me perplexed, to say the least. Here is it:



Now, I can see how it went: since his comms people are avid readers of my blog, they realised the importance and power of visual communications, hence they decided to make a video that could go viral. Seriously, I know that it's meant to be a joke, that the idea that such a powerful man could make fun of himself can be seen as a good one but, at least in my case, watching that video, at the end of a good interview to promote a 'great message' was a bit of an anti-climax.

And the curious thing is that, if I were to judge the effectiveness of it, I would really struggle Why? Because in the end, having said what I just did, I still watched it, started writing about it and shared it; hence I contributed to its viral potential. I was about to write bad, ridiculous videos DO NOT pay, but is that true? Help me out here.

Time for some answers and to reflect. And a video, of course.

My lovely reader(s) and friend(s) (one and the same?) have been asking me questions related to my near obsession with virality and effective visual communications.

Question number 1: is there a magic way to ensure that a video goes viral? No, there is not. You can try to follow some basic rules that might increase the chances, but 'virality' is never guaranteed. I am pretty sure that if you look at the top 20 most viral videos of all times, only few were made with the calculated intention of becoming 'viral'; they just did. There is however a way to make sure your video is good and effective which brings us to..

Question number 2: does having a lot of money increase the probability of success? Not really. It helps in the production and hence increases the chance that the video will be well-executed. But success is another thing.

Question number 3: is it all about emotions? Do I need to make people laugh or cry? Emotions play a big part in the success of a video. You are much more likely to share something that has hit you in some way. Whether you couldn't stop laughing, or started crying like a baby.

Let me be very clear. There are videos made with no specific objective in mind. For example, you filmed something funny or sad by chance; you wanted to try something out; you have cute kids or pets and love filming them, and so on. These are the majority of videos that go viral. But when there is a specific objective, emotions will only work if the video has, how shall I put it, A POINT. I know it sounds almost tautological but believe me, it is not.

What I mean is that if you decide to produce a video, have some money, and someone willing to help you do it, the first question you need to ask yourself is: "What do I want to communicate with this video? Why am I doing it?". If the answer is not convincing - for you first and foremost - then, you can have plenty money and emotions, but your video will not be effective. Let me put it this way: a video can be nicely produced but if it's unclear why it has been produced than it's a waste of money and time for the viewer, never mind the producer. And, you know me, I always have a little example:



On YouTube, below this video it says: How many rights have you spotted in this video? Excuse me? Is this a way to get people to watch it again and increase the views? Way too complicated. There are no emotions, it's true, but it is quite well done. Who doesn't like a nice domino - although I have seen better ones - and the Brooke Shields look-alike, but sorry..what is the point? To explain to EU citizens they have rights, or to spend the remaining communications budget before the end of the year?

Question number 4: can a video be fun and effective without being superficial? This is the typical question of non-communications experts, now working in the communications department of a company or an institution, but engineers or some such by training. For these people, the problem with videos, but also with communications more broadly, is that it does not allow you to say enough, which means that you inevitably end up being superficial. While understandable, the question is flawed. A video needs to be clear. But simple and superficial are not the same. You cannot say everything you want, but you will be able to say what matters.

And here is my favourite - I swear I have been asked. Question number 5: how important are the images for a good video? If this question makes total sense to you, then you better stick to MS Word as your communications tool. How important? They are key. The images should speak for themselves and that is also why the video above does not work very well. The main reason why video can be so powerful is the amazing force of images and text, often with music, all working together. Images and Music = a slideshow. Music and text = a song. Text = a book.

As we are approaching Christmas, I owe it to you to mention also an uncomfortable, personal question. (Don't get your hopes up, nothing too exciting).

Question number 6: 'your blog is nearly two years old; you have watched countless videos and criticised just as many. But how many have you produced? Shouldn't you put your money where your mouth is?'  I have to confess that sometimes I do fear I might have lost the touch...

But does one lose touch for these things? I guess, that is maybe true for all that is practical, especially with technology changing so fast. I remember when the older producers and reporters were talking to me about shooting on film and not on video....I found it all quite tedious, but the relentless change of technology is slightly disconcerting. And hence I do understand now why they felt the need to point it out. So yes, technology changes and you need to adapt if you don't want to stay behind.

Insight and judgement on the other hand, no, you can ever lose. And on top of that, I believe most of have a gut feeling that makes us share and like what works, and ignore what doesn't. Of course all this is a personal thing. But so too is the huge bundle of human emotions that will make something powerful, beautiful, visual, funny or shocking. But still, perhaps I should put myself to the test....another one to add to the list of New Year resolutions?

The Viral Veteran: opera in four ingredients.

This week I have selected a non European viral video: the makeover of homeless veteran Jim Wolf. The video has been seen by 13 million people in just a couple of days. Here it is:



Why has it gone viral? A couple of possible suggestions that might be worth keeping in mind when producing a video.

1) Time-lapses are fun. Always. If they are not too long. It is physically gratifying to watch something that normally takes a long time, happen in a couple of minutes; it makes you feel powerful because it helps you escape from the slowness of your daily grind.

2) The Cinderella syndrome. Make-overs are fantastic stories. The sad becoming happy, the poor becoming rich, the homeless finally buying a house; the lonely finding love and so on.

3) The f-word. The producer Rob Bliss (I mean, what a great name!) says that the virality of a video - and he does this for living - is linked to the f-eeling it produces in the person watching it: the stronger the f-eeling the more likely to become viral. Almost obvious I would say. In this case the Cinderella feeling obviously worked, but would it work with any strong feeling, even negative?

4) Maybe not, but could another reason of its success be that the protagonist looks like Chuck Norris' brother or Brad Pitt's older cousin?

I am all for virality when it raises awareness - and a lot of money as it seems - for important issues, homelessness in this case. But, is it me or does the man not look really happy when he watches himself in the mirror?  I know that the video says that he has taken control of his own life and he is going to AA meetings. I don't dispute that he is better now. I am just saying that he did not seem to like himself after all the hard work to make him look just like.... everyone else his age. And it leaves a bit of a bitter taste at the end. It's must be just me.

Anyway, well done to Bliss and Wolf.  

Videos and populism: surely, that's not the problem (and don't call me Shirley!)

As some of you know, I am a member of the board (voilà, transparency and full disclosure all in one!) of Avanti Europe! a new online citizens movement that wants to recapture the European narrative from the hands and mouths of the Eurosceptics and create a constructive debate with engaged European citizens. The debate started last week with the launch of the first solidarity campaign with the citizens of Greece. Yes, Greece. I know that all you have been hearing in the last weeks is about Cyprus, but the situation in Greece is dire and it is ordinary citizens who cannot afford healthcare any longer who are suffering, not some Russian oligarchs.

To launch the campaign we wanted to produce a video to put on our website. Ok, on the week before Easter, maybe not the best idea in terms of timing, but it was on Greek National Day, and  it's never too soon or a bad time to be supportive. Now, the video needed to be short, catchy and give enough information to make you:

a) upset about what is happening in Greece
b) interested enough to share the video with your friends
c) want to become a member of Avanti and sign the petition.

Here it is:



On the whole, it has been a successful launch and although one might dispute whether the video succeeded in all three objectives, surely it's a good start (and don't call me Shirley!  - I have re-watched the film 'Airplane' - here is the link to the clip! - after many years and cannot help using that line when I say or write surely, sorry!! ). What I found quite interesting were some of the comments on the video: some could not understand how we could use a war/video game metaphor and some found it very populist. I could have understood people criticising the actual campaign - maybe disputing whether it is wise or possible to revise austerity measures - but criticising the video for me means having a distorted idea of what that kind of video is supposed to do. Quite often I find myself defending videos which are considered too reductionist, too populist and too simplistic. Of course, I am only referring to videos whose aim is to become viral. Those videos HAVE to be simple. Don't get me wrong: this does not for a minute that I condone populism. But the danger of populism for me is in the content, not the form(at). It would be a bit like criticising ballet dancers for not singing well enough: THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO!!!!

By all means, let's have a debate, about solutions, Europe and solidarity. This is why Avanti was born in the first place. But the means to deliver the messages, surely, need to be accepted for what they are and can be. And stop calling me Shirley!

Ok, it will never be Gangnam style, but still...

I have been posting quite a number of videos produced by the EU on this blog; some better than others; some longer than others; some more controversial than others. But they all have one caracteristic in common: you need to look for them. I mean, the European Union spends a lot of money producing video material, some of which actually not very good. And it produces a huge number of videos: the EuTube channel, (yes, it is the right spelling!) has around 400 videos. And this is only the channel of the Commission, so no Parliament, no Council, nor any of the agencies.

The channel has more than 16 thousand subscribers and had around 20 million and five hundred thousand views since its birth in 2006. That sounds impressive? Well, not really, if you think that the most viewed video of all times, one single video, Gangnam style by Korean singer Psy, has been viewed more than 800 million times in only 4 months (actually, I am very puzzled about that one too, but that is for another time! Have a look at it anyway).



Maybe an unfair comparison but, more to the point, what is the distribution strategy for all the EU's video material? Wouldn't it be better to produce a bit less and use the saved money to distribute the rest a bit more? Why nobody - and please contradict me if you have - has ever seen one of the good videos - for example the one on women on boards that I uploaded last week - on a national television? Is it that difficult or that expensive? Have the people in charge for these videos in the Commission ever tried to get some special deals with member states broadcasters or with cinemas across the EU? I know that we are in the internet age so that's where all videos should be, and I am very pleased that the video I just mentioned is on the homepage of the website of Commissioner Reding. But let's be honest, how many people will voluntarily go to that website? The fact that this material has been produced and posted online does not mean the job is done if nobody watches it; it's just a waste of money and of a great opportunity.

Everybody working in the institutions here in Brussels complains that Europe is misunderstood and that European citizens are not really aware of all the good things the EU does for them. Then would it not be a good idea to start showing what it does for them and promote this kind of material in member states? Just a thought.

PS: In case you were interested, here is the most popular video on the EuTube channel (and I am sure that the fact that it's a sex scene has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is the most viewed!)

The Dirty Truth

Who said that international organisations cannot make great, strong viral videos? (Click on the link below -not the picture -  and do allow your webcam to be on if you have one!!)



http://www.nowwatchyourhands.com/

KONY 2012: what is right, not what is possible.

A new video on the Kony 2012 campaign has been recently released.



Fascinating. The original video has been viewed more than 100 million times (in just over a month). As with every big hit, it was also heavily criticised: too superficial, too white, too sentimental. Maybe, maybe and maybe but so what? Is the idea to try to do something about what we find wrong, or just to create a perfect product?

The second video tries to respond indirectly to some of the criticisms (more details, more blacks, more to the point) and highlights the impact so far. Actually, while the first had all the ingredients for virality, (a part from a key one, length: who would have imagined that a 30 minutes video would go viral? Will need to update my virality recipe!) this second one is, well... a second one, so, by definitition, it will not be as successful. But there is a bigger point to make at this stage: the campaign wants to move from being mainly 'digital' to 'physical'. Specifically, on the 20th of April they are asking their supporters to write to their local or national politician, and, when the sun sets, go out and carpet bomb with flyers their city - or do any other noticeable legal activity that will put pressure on their government and make Kony known and eventually tracked down.

If they manage to convince enough people to do it, it will be a big first, I think: from 'clicktivism'- very easy from the comfort of your desk - to real action. If then Kony is found and arrested, it will be an unbelievable
success. We will all need to think twice before coming up with the classical excuse for not doing something (i.e. 'It will never work. It's impossible'); but politicians, above all, will need to take notice and maybe, just maybe, start doing what is right on top of what is possible, what is realistically achieveable, never mind what is 'in our national interest'.

But what if they don't manage...will this whole campaign be remembered as a great stunt, great use of social media and worthwhile effort but ultimately a failed campaign?

I wait with anticipation and in the meanwhile...am drafting a couple of letters!

The Bark Side!

No EU today! Just...well...fun.
Back to the ingredients for 'virality' for a minute: remember animals and familiar tunes? Well VW has done it again! 2.5 million views in one day!



Enjoy!

The recipe (or why 'virality' and 'quality' are not the same thing...)

So, now, if you want to be viral, here is a list of ingredients you will need to pick from, in no particular order, and mix together. All of the below have been watched by tens of millions of people:

Children (I have chosen this one as an example because I am so bored with the 'Charlie bit me' one!)



Animals



Extraordinary people



Animations/Graphics



A little digression. Can someone tell me why this animation has got 58 million views? Thanks.



Funny



Moving



Shocking (the quality of this one is not great but frankly...just as well...)



A successful mix (children, moving and funny) with a couple of useful extra ingredients such as a very well-known music and a famous film reference...



But before you pick and mix, exactly like you would do before you start cooking, you will need to decide..... which dish you are going to prepare: i.e. you need to figure out whether you really want your video to be a viral video or a good video to post on your website or elsewhere. Ok, it might seem a silly decision - who would not want to be viral? (Have I just written this? It sounds awful!)- but it is not silly at all. And after having seen some of the viral videos above you might NOT want to be viral at all!

And I can tell you why: in a viral video, content, i.e. what you actually say, does not matter much. Honestly, the thought of content not being important was incredibly scary for someone who has spent 10 years at the BBC, where we liked to believe that content was king...but online 'virality' is something else, so...I got over it.

On the other hand, if you want to produce a good, informative video that will be viewed only by the people you care about - and then passed on to other people you care about- then what you say has to be really relevant. Mind you, also your 'informative' video needs to be..ehm.. watchable! So stay tuned for the rules on 'watchability', ie quality.

Why the blog?

New Year, new resolutions....

Sharing and expand my love, interest and -why not?- expertise in visual communications.

Everyone is so busy these days; the attention span - especially of young people - is becoming shorter; yet we all spend hours and hours behind a computer screen. What does this mean? It means that visual online communications has become the most powerful and effective way of shaping the way people think, feel and act.

As a European living in Brussels, I also want to give a European feel to this blog: why most of the fun, viral, effective videos come out of the US? Why can't we have good quality videos coming out of the, wait to hear this, European institutions? You hear constantly here in Brussels: why do Europeans citizens not understand the amazing things we do for them? Have a look at this:



Are you surprised that only 441 people watched it so far, and who knows how many of those 441 watched it until the end? And this is actually not the worse video of the lot...and it tackles a really important subject....

And why are so many private companies shy - to say the least - of using such an effective tool?

Trying to answer and address these questions is not going to be easy but ...as I said, New Year, new (and tough) resolutions....

And just to leave you with a graphic video that I really like (because graphics don't need to be tedious!). More than 900.000 views, by the way...

Talking of 'virality'....

Well, not very European but I could not start this blog without posting an amazing viral music video that in a couple of days has got more than 6.6 million hits. Ok, it's a great song and ok it is pretty incredible (5 people playing on 1 guitar)...but still...it gives you the idea of the potential....had anybody actually heard of  'Walk off the Earth' before? Enjoy, and great ingredients for viral videos coming up soon...