Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Social Media Case Reflection 2

           Viral videos, we can all name a few, or even better reenact some of the most viewed videos of our time. In the beginnings of YouTube and social media the formula for viral videos was elusive, they ranged from a panda sneezing to news interviews gone hilariously wrong. Now we see companies who entire basis is creating viral content and they have a “formula” for what a video should have to make it viral and business can be built in one day with a viral video. One of the first groups to tap into the idea of consistent viral videos was the band OK Go which found YouTube stardom with their first music video, then their second, and then their third. They seemed to tap into the formula that was needed to make a video go viral and they were doing well. They went from a garage band to a household name within a matter of days thanks to YouTube. So when they released a new video in November of 2016 but chose to release it somewhere that was not YouTube, people were confused even a little miffed.
              As a nod to their beginnings shouldn’t OK Go stuck with the platform that started it all for them? The answer is a resounding no. Anyone with any business and marketing acumen can tell you that what worked for you once isn’t going to be the answer forever and the companies that have lasted the test of time have done so because they have been able to adapt to changing technology and marketing strategies. Do you think that Macy’s Department store, founded in 1830, would still be around if they were using the same marketing strategies that worked in 1830 now? A couple well-placed billboards, printed posters in restaurant. Every business has to evolve with technology if they want to survive and in 2017 that means using social media in your marketing and advertising.
              So back to OK Go’s decision to release on Facebook instead of YouTube. Both are influential social media platforms, both have huge following and potential viewership in the millions, so why was Facebook the smart move. According to http://www.epica-awards.com/news/723 Dmitry Tutkov, owner of the Russian Agency who produced the video,
              “Logically we should have released it on YouTube, because that’s what everyone does, but we needed to make it viral. The solution was Facebook, because on YouTube you can’t share very easily – you have to copy a link. On Facebook, you just click ‘share’. So the Facebook model is ideal for viral videos. From this experience we realized that videos get traction much more quickly on social media than on a video hosting website.”
The idea that a video can be shared so easily on Facebook was a huge draw for OK Go and Tutkov’s agency. Tutkov was approached by the Russian Airline S7 to produce a marketing video for them and he presented the idea of doing a music video in one of their planes. They contacted OK Go and the rest you can say is history. S7 Airlines supplied the crew and the airplane for the shoot as well as financial backing for the video in hopes that they would see an increase in sales from the video. Here is where things get a little messy. OK Go made their plans to debut exclusively on Facebook for a 48 hour period and S7 released a copy of the video on their YouTube page before the Facebook debut, quickly the video was removed and viewers were greeted with a copyright message. The video was then released exclusively to Facebook and eventually added to both OK Go’s and S7’s YouTube pages.
              The question remains was S7 outside of their legal and ethical limits posting the video to their YouTube channel. Without knowing what sort of contract was involved I can’t say for sure but according to the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 if OK Go was hired to be in the video for advertising purposes S& Airlines would own the copyright to the video. I am going to assume that this is not the case and that this was merely a sponsorship, not a work for hire. If this is the case according to that same clause in the Constitution OK Go and S7 Airlines produced a joint wok and S7 Airlines would then be “co-owners of a single copyright in the work,” giving them every right to post the video on their own YouTube channel.
              Obviously there is too much information that I couldn’t find to really make an accurate determination. There is a possibility that there was a contract in place giving OK Go sole ownership of the video, or placing sharing restriction on S7 Airlines but if there wasn’t then S7 airlines didn’t do anything wrong legally speaking.



No comments:

Post a Comment