Interestingly enough, it seems many companies, are jumping on the social media bandwagon with campaigns that include youtube channels.
Are these companies (such as coke) really late to the table? Youtube videos are nothing new? Are they afraid to engage in actual social interaction online, which includes allowing your audience to speak and is thus more risky? They are taking advantage of the public's desire for funny and interesting entertainment, and sites like Youtube allow them to engage with this desire in a similar way to the television advertising that they are used to. But has anything changed? Or is Youtube just television 2.0?
In contrast to my blog or facebook page, my habits concerning Youtube are remarkably passive. I download the videos I want to watch, and I watch them. Occasionally I read the comments other people have posted, but I rarely post comments of my own. As far as Youtube is concerned, I am a media consumer - not a producer. This flies in the face of usual assumption about the nature of participation on web 2.0 social media technologies and is worth considering when we ask questions about why companies like coke are moving online.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The utility drives the use. Neither my brother nor I are media producers. But if I twist his arm, he will likely upload his kids' videos for our viewing, since I see them after a long time. Or if I go on a trip, I will upload some videos for my family. On the other hand, brands and companies are also trying to build relationships through engagement. YouTube et al. perhaps allow one more way to do so, if done well.
When looking at TV and the internet, it is of great interest to see how the brand message is executed differently. While both mediums are used to increase brand awareness, on TV there is a great effort to clearly establish who is the advertiser, whereas on the internet there is often more of an effort made to be "sneaky" about who has produced the video.
Post a Comment