Man vs. Machine: The Importance of Captcha Security

As a music fanatic, I have been aware of both Captcha software and the existence of "bots" for several years now.  I can still remember the "scandal" that occurred in 2008 when Avril Lavigne used bots to force the video for her new single at the time, "Girlfriend", to become the most viewed Youtube video of all time.  To understand both my confusion and disgust, let's revisit this cinematic gem:

I'm confused...is she saying she doesn't like her music either?  

I'll forgive those of you out there that didn't make it passed the first thirty seconds.  Not only is the song itself a rip off of several other far better songs, but the video seems to glorify bullying. It's trite garbage and for a brief moment after discovering that it had gone on to break some insane record (it still currently stands with a staggering 238 million + views to date), I completely lost faith in the youth of America.  

To be fair, the video and the song are not targeted at me, but it also appears to use a fairly common formula. Over-produced "punk" guitar-riff and lyrics that are meant to pander to over-emotional teenage girls.  I'll stop myself there, because this post is not about the death of mainstream music, but rather the deceitful and conniving lengths that artists and labels will go to convince our culture that something is more popular than it truly is.  

Last year, Youtube docked large labels like RCA, Sony, & RCA over 2 billion views that were falsely generated using bots.

"Using multiple proxy servers, anyone in the world can pump up their videos with hundreds of thousands plays, and is just as easy and lucrative as buying Facebook likes and Instagram followers." (Via.) 

What's even more mind-blowing about this is the fact that the majority of these "artists" are just terrible.  Among the names are such radio staples as Justin Bieber, Chris Brown, Rihanna, and of course Avril Lavigne.  The point is that honest artists are being left behind by big name labels with fat check books and the consumers are paying the price.  

Let me propose a situation for a minute.  A song comes on the radio, you don't care for it so you change the station.  A few minutes later, the other station begins playing the same song.  Irritated, you move on to a third station, and wouldn't you know it?  The song comes on again!  Are you losing your mind?  Is this some sort of conspiracy.  Absolutely not.  The large labels are paying the radio stations to play this and many other terrible songs to convince you that they have value.  And scientifically speaking, after a certain number of plays (depending on how bad the song is), there is a strong likelihood that the song will cease to annoy you.  In fact, you might even begin to enjoy it.  And when it's playing everywhere, it becomes inescapable and will most certainly get stuck in your head whether you like it or not.  

So let's get back to the issue at hand, because we don't have the power to destroy the radio business model, but we can battle these "bots" that are doing quite a bit of damage themselves, or can we?  It is a constant battle to stay ahead.  A few years ago, some Stanford researches discovered that the Captcha software being used by big firms such as eBay, Blizzard Entertainment, and Visa.net, were at risk of being easily decoded.  Of course, these firms took action to increase security (they no doubt have a team working around the clock to detect bugs), but the point is that there are an entire army of hackers out there looking to determine where these systems are vulnerable and defraud their user bases, send out spam, falsely increase user bases, and even steal valuable information.  

Captcha examples

By definition, Captchas are tested to ensure that users are humans and not robots.  Being aware of this software as a consumer or business professional is critical in generating accurate statistics.  It's scary to think that you could be outbid by a robot on eBay or that, even though you sat in front of the computer for 2 hours to get tickets to Bruce Springsteen, you lost out because some jerks had hundreds of different bots running to snatch them up for resale.  But these are the facts.  The biggest takeaway here is to question the systems that are in place, constantly test them for accuracy, and most importantly, venture outside of the norm.  Just because you're being told something is popular, doesn't necessarily mean it is.  

Using a Crowd to Draw a Crowd

One of the subjects discussed in this week's class was increasingly popular use of "user generated content" (UGC).  Sure, there were examples of this before the internet (submitting jokes for popsicle sticks or drawings for cereal boxes), but the advent of the internet and the social media platforms that followed have made this an exciting new opportunity for businesses.  Now businesses can ask their followers to post things directedly to their Facebook page, Youtube, or on Twitter (using a hashtag) and they can immediately join into the conversation.  Below is a list of a 3 very different examples of user generated content done right:

1) Nissan - #VersaVid

Nissan utilized the power of Vine and Instagram and challenged users through a commercial to go to their website and print out a paper version of their new Versa car.

"Fans then had to record a short video using Instagram or Vine and post it with the hashtag #VersaVid. The six best videos will receive a $1000 dollar Amazon voucher, with three featuring in Nissan’s upcoming US commercial."
 Via.

The videos were clever and easy to make, even thought some users created some brilliant ones.  It was effective because it did not require fans to expel too much effort and yet entered them into a fun competition where they could be recognized and win a prize.  

2) Threadless (a Chicago based T-Shirt company)

Threadless has gone even further than requesting users to occasionally submit content, they have turned this idea into their business model.  The originally just e-commerce t-shirt company (they now have 2 stores in their home city of Chicago) solicits designs from an online community of artists.  Since the company began in 2000, Jake Nickell and Jacob DeHart have, "...received 257,921 designs since its founding in 2000 and paid out $7,120,000 to 1,374 artists, who make money each time someone buys their design."

"Artists and designers are encouraged to submit their files for scoring. For seven days, the Threadless community scores the design 1 to 5, leaving comments; that feedback helps the Threadless team decide what to print. When a design is selected, the artist gets cash upfront and royalties based on the number of products sold with the design.

Threadless founder Jake Nickell's goal wasn't to build a multimillion-dollar business, but to "give the creative minds of the world more opportunities to make and sell great art," he said in an interview."

Via.

A threadless artist goes to work.

3) Tosh.0

A television show that has taken the lead from companies such as Threadless and taken it to television.  Think of "America's Funniest Home Videos", remove the family friendly branding, and inject it with the sarcasm of the ADD generation.  

The show is hosted by comedian, Daniel Tosh, and has been airing on comedy central since 2009.  Each week, Tosh' "writers" comb the internet for the most disgusting, strange, humorous videos they can find and then Tosh comments on them using his own brand of comedy.  

The popularity of the show is founded on UGC and the variety of competitions and challenges the Tosh poses each week.  Tosh also uses Twitter to communicate with viewers, often during the show.  Many shows have begun to follow suit, but Tosh executes better than anyone.  Editors' note, I do not personally enjoy this show, I find it a bit juvenile, but I have to admire his ability to engage his audience.

Some "best" moments

Buyers Be Aware: How the Internet is Killing Brand Loyalty

               This week’s discussions examined a lot of the aspects the make for effective advertising on the web, but one aspect that caught my attention was the deterioration of brand loyalty, or more specifically, the fact that consumers today are far more informed than in previous generations and therefore have far more buying power.  Whereas in the past, a brand could stand for something and therefore inspire trust, today consumers are more likely to align with the product itself over the company. 

                In Geoffrey James’ article, “Brand Loyalty is (Almost) Dead”, James writes, “The customer's predisposition to buy a particular brand reduced sales cost while allowing the seller to charge more for the product, even if it was virtually identical to a non-branded competitive product.”  

                Building a brand used to be incredibly important to a company’s bottom line because it would inevitably reduce costs on advertising dollars.  A brand became synonymous with the quality and consistency of the products that they were selling, so consumers would be able to identify a name and a logo and instantly be “sold”.  The internet has slowly destroyed this idea for a plethora of reasons, but I will highlight three.

                First a foremost, the consumer has become infinitely wiser as information on products and companies has become readily available via the web.  Thinking of trying a new restaurant?  Check Yelp for user reviews beforehand and you will find a host of pros and cons that will either sway or dissuade your from ultimately dining at said establishment.  If you really dig around, the chances are you will be able to paint a fairly accurate portrait of your proposed dining experience without ever setting foot in the venue. 

One Yelp reviewer found himself in a legal battle over a negative review.

               The same applies to other businesses in all industries.  Before I purchase anything from Amazon, I always read the customer reviews.  I pay incredibly close attention the bad ones because it is important to know ahead of time whether or not there are any particular areas where the product might fall short of my expectations.  When making larger purchases (i.e. expensive clothes, technology, auto, etc.), I will dig around for weeks so that I can spend my dollars with the greatest amount of certainty.

                Of course there are negatives to this approach.  All people are going to be different and while there is safety in numbers, shouldn’t we also consider the possibility that our tastes might differ from the 40, 50, or even 500 other reviewers?  It is also important to think about the sort of people that spend their time reviewing a product.  I have personally found myself reviewing products or experiences far more frequently, but for the most part these reviews were the result of extremely satisfied or extremely dissatisfied opinions.  I rarely take time out of my day to review something that I am indifferent to or had a neutral experience with, but who knows?  Perhaps there are a lot of people out there desperate to share their mediocre encounters.

                The second reason that brand loyalty is floundering is that a lot of products (especially tech products, aside from design) are becoming essentially the same.  James points out that due to outsourcing, you might be purchasing two different brand name computers with parts being manufactured in the same plant.  In the end, the only thing separating the products becomes the price, the customer service, and perhaps the warrantee.  The product itself is not symbolic of the brand name.  When I would purchase a PC in the past, I would look for something that made it different, better, than the others, but ultimately the company that assembles the computer from parts that are shared among several different companies can only hope to charge you more for your brand name.  This might have flown in the past, but I can tell you with confidence that I paid way too much money for my Sony VAIO years ago and it ended up being a piece of crap.  So why did I pay so much?  Sony assured me I was buying a machine with supreme capabilities, but all I did was pay for lies.  Sorry Sony, I’ll take my chances with a lesser known brand these days, my wallet and my anxiety will thank me later.

The choice is yours, choose wisely

                The last reason that brand loyalty has gone out the window, and a point that James does not introduce, is that the internet has created such a low barrier for entry into the marketplace that literally thousands of new competing products are being unveiled each day.  The only way for these products to compete is through design and cost.  I purchased a case for my Moto X Android phone from a company that has been around for just over a year.  Guess what?  I love it.  The reviews were positive, but more importantly there was something innately exciting about having a case that none of my friends had.  I was something that I felt made me unique.  The flood of new products coming out make this sort of feeling possible, it’s about finding your individuality amongst a sea of conformity (a subject that is fascinating in itself and should serve for an interesting post at a later date).  The point is, there are more options than ever and if you are not risk averse to trying something new and the opportunity is there, then why not go for it? 

Nailed it.

                The death of brand loyalty is more closely aligned with older generations.  It is hard to forget that having the right toys, shoes, clothes, etc. was a dramatically integral part of your youth.  Children are easy to sell, and while teenagers are fickle (today’s brand might not be tomorrow’s), at least they can temporarily agree on what is cool. 

                Finally, James argues that powerful brands like Coke and Apple don’t have brand loyalty.  Coke has distribution loyalty and Apple has product loyalty (products that work well together).  If a store doesn’t offer Coke, buy a Pepsi.  If Apple makes a crappy product, don’t buy it. 

Recognize these?

                What does this mean for business?  We know what it means for consumers.  We have the power now becausewe have the information.  Do businesses give up on brand building?  I don’t think so, I think companies will just need to recognize that building a brand is more important than saving advertising dollars.  I would like to see brands take an innovative approach and really stand for something.  Look at Chipotle.  Look at Johnson & Johnson.  Look at TOMS shoes.  Hell, even look at MTV.  These brands stand for something that coincides with what they are selling.  They are selling passion, an experience, hope, or a lifestyle, and with that a guarantee and a promise that the company will not betray their message.  We may not be able to win more sales with a strong brand in the age of the internet, but we can certainly win over peoples’ perceptions.  In the end that might end up making all the difference. 

THE BLURRED LINES OF INTERNET TAXONOMY

The subject of internet taxonomies was raised this week and it is something that I have always been fascinated by.  I think now, more than ever before, companies are starting with a thread of an idea and evolving into something entirely different.  Before the internet, it would have been far more difficult to seamlessly crossover into other markets, but e-commerce has enabled small start-ups to determine their core values, establish themselves, and branch out successfully.  

Of course there have been instances where companies have disastrously failed to expand their empire.  Even the most well-known and resourceful corporations have tread into territory that they perhaps should not have.  Microsoft is still struggling with their foray into mobile phones (operating systems) and despite the money being filtered into marketing for Bing, they are still undoubtedly miles and miles behind Google search. 

Speaking of Google, they are undoubtedly the greatest example of a firm that has not adhered to any specific taxonomy.  The closest category you might place them in is simply “tech firm” because, while they started with a revolutionary algorithm for collecting data on the web, they have expanded into dozens of different markets and continue to do so.  If Google sees a lucrative business opportunity, they are likely to seize it, because they have the talent and the funding to do so.  Google (not unlike Apple) have expanded into mobile phones, television, natural energy, cars, medical technology, and even space travel. 

An Amazon.com factory worker

Google is not alone, far from it in fact.  Amazon.com began as a book retailer.  Now, you can purchase just about anything on the Amazon market.  Zappos.com began with shoes alone.  As was mentioned in this week’s lecture, these expansions are possible because of the platform in which the businesses are built, which defies all classic brick and mortar structures.  Amazon recognized that their operations gave them a strategic advantage (which is why they were able to acquire Zappos, although Zappos introduced new elements such as free return shipping).   Internet taxonomy is fluid.  That means that there are opportunities for these large businesses to diversify themselves.  A company like Google or Amazon can identify their strengths and then build from them. 

Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos.com

Often these startups begin with one product and become something entirely different.  This is not uncommon, even pre-internet era.  The classic example is the Post-it Note.  Dr. Spencer Silver, in his attempts to create an effective long lasting, heavy duty adhesive, created a “low-tack”, reusable formula.  It is difficult to imagine a world without Post-it Notes and yet the genesis of the product itself was a fluke. 

Just as important as the product and service is the economic model of the company.  Again, the internet has made it possible for companies to sustain themselves through methods that before would not have ever been considered.  The “Fremium” model has allowed a lot of companies to enter markets with an edge and establish themselves quickly.  Spotify is a great example, a company that has licensed hundreds of millions of songs, allowing users to access the library for free, and driving a strong portion of their revenue from ads that play every few songs.  Like Netflix, the premium service is fairly inexpensive ($9.99/month), and now at least a quarter of the 20 million Spotify users are paid customers.  This model has pushed the valuation past the $3 billion mark. 

In case you haven’t caught on just yet, the excitement of the tech industry doesn’t so much lay in the products or technology itself but the sexy and innovative methods of delivering the product to the market. 

“Silicon Valley”, a current HBO program in its first season brilliantly satirizes this world, where suddenly the geeks have become rock stars.  The central character, Richard, aspired to create new media sharing platform akin to Napster and named the start-up “Pied Piper”.  The idea is not novel by any means, but venture capitalists come knocking as soon as they see that he has managed to engineer a file compression system that is entirely lossless and faster than anything on the market.  Richard suddenly realizes that the product isn’t the music or the media sharing, but the possibilities derived from his superior programming.  

Thomas Middleditch as Richard Hendricks on HBO's "Silicon Valley"

And that is the point.  A brilliant mind can have every intention of taking one path and ignore the fork in the road altogether.  Technology can be boundless and transcendent.  Internet taxonomy therefore is a category in itself, but is otherwise a very foggy subject.  If I lay a piece of wood down in front of you, you might see a table, but I might see a surfboard. 

Addicted to Escape: The Dangers of the Multi-Billion Dollar Video Game Industry

This week we discussed several subjects, but the one I am choosing to post on relates to video games and how they have expanded with internet and social technology.  I don't have anything against video games, I used to play them occasionally as a child, but as I've gotten older I've found that it was never a priority to begin with and thus doesn't deserve the time, money, or energy that I don't have just to "connect" with other gamers.  The video game industry currently valued at well above 68 billion dollars a year globally.  That's billion with a B.  That's more money generate by video game sales than the movie and music industries combined.  There's a reason that it's so successful, it's because it can be addictive.  Take a look at the statistics below, a few of which I will highlight afterwards:

(Click link below to enlarge)

 

Via.

There were a few facts I found alarming.  Remember, this infographic is from 2009, and the industry has only grown year over year.  The average age of all gamers is 34 years old.  I am 30 years old now and I only assumed that playing video games was supposed to decrease the older you got.  Does this mean I might pick them up later on?  Will I be buying games when I am 39 years old?  I suppose generationally it makes sense, for the first time the average adult grew up with access to video games in the home for their entire lives and now they can play them to connect with their children.

Another fact I found particularly distressing is that the average gamer spends 8 hours a week play video games!  That is likely in addition to unbelievable 35 hours a week they spend watching television! That's nearly 2 days a week spent in front of a screen with your mind being held hostage.  What has become of our culture that this is acceptable behavior?  Why are these games so important to us?  Is real life so dreadful that we need to set aside two days a week to escape it?  

The last fact above that I find surprising are the percentage of parents (64%) that believe video games are a positive part of their children's lives.  67% ( approximately 210,313,000 people) of US households are playing video games...which means that 64% of those, well over a million people, find it fitting for their children to play games.  

Here is why I have to question that:

Boy, 13, held on charges he killed cousin, 16, over Xbox

Lil Snupe Murder Suspect Accused of Killing Rapper Over a Video Game

Anthony Maldonado, 9, stabbed to death over 

video game while visiting family in Harlem

Teen Arrested For Killing Brother Over ‘Flappy Bird’ Game

O Snodaigh's son stabbed 'in row over video game

And these were only the first few articles on the first page.  There are literally hundreds and hundreds of instances where adolescents (and several adults as well) were driven to violence over a video game confrontation.  I don't have the answer to why because I frankly don't understand it.  What is the obsession with these fantasy worlds that we build ourselves?  We know they aren't real and yet we allow ourselves to be affected by them beyond rationality.  I think that most things are acceptable in moderation.  And I do believe that there are positive benefits to game play, especially when you are forced to challenge your mind, but the compulsion and addiction scares me and I think it should worry other people as well.  It's important to be self aware, and hey...why not go outside every once in while?

Introducing our GOMC Partner: Upstage Resume!

Team Snapshot and Upstage Resume

Have you ever walked into an interview with a boring resume? Are you looking for a way to stand out from the competition when applying for a new job? Upstage Resume is here to help! With a variety of customized templates, Upstage Resume will help transform your resume from bland to beautiful.


As part of the Google Online Marketing Challenge, Team Snapshot will be promoting Upstage Resume through an online paid search campaign. Below Team Snapshot provides background on the organization, its mission and products, a competitive analysis and a technical analysis. This information will be used to allow Team Snapshot to help grow Upstage Resume's business.

Background

Alysha Watson was updating her resume three months ago when she became inspired to show off both personality and creativity through the design of her resume.  She realized that her document hadn't changed much in the last 5 years besides minor formatting changes. Lauren, who eventually became Alysha’s business partner, was a graphic designer that Alysha collaborated with to create her updated resume. The design was created to catch the eye of a potential employer, with a finished product that included a headshot and graph used to display Alysha’s skills in a visual way instaed of basic bullet points.  Alysha received nothing but positive feedback on her new resume and found that a lot of her peers and friends were interested in having her help redesign their resumes. Alysha and Lauren began working on a website that would allow consumers to send in a basic Word document resume and select a template from over 20 designs for their new resume. The site launched on April 1, 2014 and because Alysha and Lauren both have full time jobs, they are fulfilling orders as they come in during their spare time.  

To quote Alysha on her new company: “Upstage Resume's vision is to enhance the traditional resume with color, creativity and design. We want to help the every-day person "outshine the competition" with a resume that is unique and one of a kind.”

We (the members of Team Snapshot) chose Upstage Resume for the Google Online Marketing Challenge because they are a brand new company that has great potential for success. Because of their easy-to-use website and creative resume designs available, Upstage Resume taps into a currently un-pursued niche market. Upstage Resume is currently using basic marketing tools , which leaves a lot of ways Team Snapshot can help grow the business (they use Shopify to track click through rates and page views but have not pursued any further advertisements besides their pages on social media profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter).  

Mission & Products: What the company seeks to do and how it does this through its product offerings.

Upstage Resume’s mission is to provide a product that will help their customers, primarily job seekers, stand out from their competition by providing customized resumes and cover letters that look and read very differently than typical boilerplate resumes.   By enhancing their customer’s current resume through creativity and design, Upstage Resume delivers a product that is a more distinctive and eye-catching deviation from the normal tool of job seekers alike.

Upstage offers 15 different resume templates as well as custom resume and cover letter design. They also offer upgrades and revisions should your resume change or require editing.  Upstage Resume commits to a 72 hour turnaround on resume deliveries, but offers expedited service for a premium.   Upstage does not edit the content of their customer’s resumes, choosing to focus their business on design. 

Competitive Analysis: What other companies out there could be substitutes, or offer similar services?

There are a lot of options out there as far as receiving some sort of assistance with writing your resume or creating a resume that is aesthetically pleasing.  Upstage has determined that their two biggest competitors are Loft Resumes and Resume Launch. 

Loft Resumes is very similar in that they take a basic structured word processing document and translate it into something that matches form with function.  With that being said, Upstage’s costs are far lower and their designs are uniquely designed.  Loft has a lot of options to choose from, but the costs average $99, which is considerably higher than the $35 charged by Upstage.  Their website is also very similar looking to Upstage’s, but a person looking for a job might not always be able to rationalize the cost.

Resume Launch serves a different client base than Upstage Resume.  Again, they offer unique resume product designs that translate boring structure into beautiful resumes but their designs are less interesting than those offered by Upstage. We suspect that a lot of their revenue is driven by their resume assistance offering, which is manned by one person (implying that turn around on purchases is either slow or not top of the line).  Based on reading their twitter account, they are constantly looking to broaden their resume template offerings, advertising new templates on almost a weekly basis.  This will make them more competitive going forward and might force Upstage, new to the market, to consider ways to differentiate themselves.  Their costs are also lower for templates at $25.  

Technical Abilities: how is Upstage Resume utilizing technology?

Upstage Resume is an entirely web-based service organization. Because its products are purchased, paid for and distributed via the website, Internet technology is a core functionality requirement. If the organization forgets to pay its web hosting fees, the website would go dark and there would be limited opportunity for the business.

Upstage Resume relies completely on social media and word of mouth to spread awareness. They are currently utilizing a website, blog, Facebook page, Twitter page, Google+ account and LinkedIn profile. Due to their recent launch, they do not have a large following yet on any of these sites. Their Facebook account has the largest audience, which consists of 305 “likes” for their page. One of their current strategies is too communicate flash sales and special offers via their social media sites. Because of the importance of an online audience going to these sites, one of Team Snapshot’s goals will be to increase social media site traffic.

There are a number of suggestions Team Snapshot has put together regarding Upstage Resume’s social media sites. First, because sales and special offers are only listed on sites like Facebook and Twitter, including direct links to these pages should be obvious on the company’s landing page. A site user currently has to scroll down below the fold to find links to these pages, and there is no call to action or benefits callout on why a user would want to follow Upstage Resume on social media. Second, it makes sense to have an Internet presence on multiple social media sites; however, defining what each will be used for is important.  A critical aspect of social media for businesses is defining the purpose of that social media account. Should all social media sites be used to communicate special offers, or just a few? What type of audience is each social media site trying to attract and what does that actual audience look like? How can we incorporate analytical sites like Google Analytics or other platforms to gain insight into who is actually going to these sites?

All of these points will be addressed in how Team Snapshot helps Upstage Resume grow its business in the Google Online Marketing Challenge.

Thanks For Sharing: Oliver Luckett and the New World Order of Celebrity Advertising

In the midst of trying to come up with something write about this week, I came across an article in Yahoo News titled, "It's All in the Share, and the Buzz." by Eric Pfeiffer.  The article discusses a man named Oliver Luckett who has become incredibly successful for branding and shaping public perceptions of celebrities such as Mark Wahlberg, large companies such as Ford Motors, and even President Obama.  He does this by creating original content that is heavy on "buzz" and the likelihood of going viral.

Oliver Luckett in theAudience's Hollywood Headquarters (via.)

Luckett began his foray into development of media specifically designed for an online audience in 2008 after selling his company DigiSynd to Disney.  From there, he launched his new company theAudience with Napster and Facebook's Sean Parker and William Morris Endeavor's Ari Emanuel.  The purpose of the company is to build an online presence for their clients while also shaping people's perceptions.  Luckett sees the internet as the only necessary medium in building and crafting brand awareness.  It doesn't have to be as expensive as television and the results are frequently more quickly realized.

Let me break down a couple of examples:

• Perhaps the most famous example of theAudience's work is an EDM song by a duo called The Chainsmokers, who quite literally utilized the power of social media to gain a following and subsequently a major label contract after the release of their song, "#SELFIE".  

               

            I personally find the song to be terrible, but does shamelessly find a method of relating to the youth generation's inherent narcissism or vanity, as well as their desire to connect with one another.   The "word" selfie is so heavily used in our society's everyday vernacular that Webster's Dictionary actually added it to it's list of words in 2013.  Not only are "selfies" incredibly popular with today's youth, but many of the "selfies" used in the videos are licensed through real teenage "social media celebrities".  Two examples are Acacia Brinley (1.2 million followers on Instagram) and Nash Grier (6.5 million Vine followers).  I have no idea who these people are, but with such a large audience, it was not long before the video went viral.  It currently sits at over 64 million views on YouTube.

             EDM music plus social media celebrities plus use of hashtags and the word "selfie", it all seems far too obvious, but it worked.  It certainly doesn't make our youth look very intelligent, it makes them look predictable.  

• The second example is a commercial that was created by Ford Motors and released a couple of weeks ago.  If you'll recall, Cadillac released a commercial during the Super Bowl that received a great deal of criticism for "extolling the values of American consumer culture."  As a reference, here is that commercial:

              As you can see, the commercial presumes that Americans work harder than the rest of the world and that as a result, we're better and we deserve better.  There are a lot of ways the tone and dialogue might be deemed offensive, but in response Luckett and his team chose to leech off of the video's infamy and create a response for Ford Motors:

                     The clip features Detroit activist Pashon Murray speaking proudly of the good that hardworking Americans do.  She makes note that we are not all material driven, entitled blowhards.  She leaves the viewer feeling good about themselves, that they should hold their head up high because we are American and that means we want to make the world a better place.  The video currently has over a million views on YouTube and was published on March 26th.  Those aren't astronomical numbers but they are still impressive.  

It's easy to recognize that clear dichotomy between the two campaigns, but that is because they are specifically designed with different audiences in mind (the firm's namesake was not chosen hastily).  Luckett and his team recognize the power of "sharability" and the changing landscape of advertising.  A lot of the power of theAudience is driven by the company's access to a vast network of celebrity supporters.   Ford was responsible for the commercial itself, but they needed help reaching viewers which is where Luckett came in.  He granted them access to a number of vast celebrity networks that agreed to share the video on their social media accounts.  If you think that's impressive, imagine the impact theAudience had during the most recent presidential campaign.

Luckett was hired to manage over 60 Facebook pages for Barack Obama and his initiatives and was able to reach 261 million people a week with original content designed specifically for President Obama.  The power his company is able to wield, especially in this age of instant fame and celebrity worship is perhaps unmatched.  I'm not sure if it's fair or manipulative exploitation, but I'm very curious where this methodology will go next and who else will hop on board.  What are your thoughts?  Is the age of television advertising dead?  What do you think the key to successful viral marketing?  

Sources:

Yahoo News

Cream Global

Tech Crunch