Could, you please enlighten me as to which of the massive brands have switched up to 80% of their budgets online – because I simply can’t think of who they are. Or is this hyperbole.

The POTENTIAL to harness WOM online is massive. It is however, still just potential as far as I can tell based on results (apart from hits, downloads and chatter) – I want to see firm brand-building results over a period of time. Again, please enlighten me. Many pundits believe that you CAN’T harness WOM. The vey fact that it is an ill-defined collection of disparate people with an unforeseen common interest that rises like a Phoenix dictates this (i.e. Bogan Clare). That which cannot be harnessed has little or no value no matter how large the numbers are. Further, some of the gloomier pundits believe that attempts by marketers to ‘invade’ the social media space with advertising messages is the antithesis of the whole raison d’etre of social media, and could damage brand equity – though myself am not that gloomy and think we need to experiment to find the ground rules and boundaries . But always remember the old adage “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.

But it is a changing era, remember that marketing was only created in the 1960’s and brands in the true sense were around a lot earlier as well.Marketing is about as old as television.

I must refer you to Y&R fundi John Gerzema and his book called the Brand Bubble in which he talks about the massive difference between what brands think they are worth and what consumers think brands are worth. (and waht brands think they are worth is actually irrelevant) Also to the writings of Seth Godin where he describes the different eras before during and after advertising. (meatball sundae)

Many of the key assumptions of advertising are just no longer valid.

Thats not to say that those massive brands that have switched up to 80% of their budgets into online are right, just because they measure effectiveness and action not OTS.

The real power of online is word of mouth, and ok in this case the story that spread via WOM was so what – the fact that it spread is the big thing. Far faster, far further, and far cheaper, than any conventional campaign ever invented.

I am not saying that there is no value in conventional media, at all, but its role is changing, television is already a support medium not a primary medium in some markets.

However, the ‘hughest’ difference between ‘traditional media’ and ’social’ media’ is runs on the board. Without tracking ‘nodes of conversation’ (what we used to call water-cooler talk) traditional media have managed to build the majority of the biggest brands in existence (apart from Google. which is a genuine phenomenon). Somehow I think the existing media must be doing SOMETHING right.

As you point out it comes down to relevance. What Clare did and said IS irrelevant. Just as the ‘conversations’ generated will be irrelevant in a week or two. The fact it spread is a quirk of human curiosity – social media allowed a rapid spread of that curiosity – which is just wonderful. But what outcome was there – none. It was irrelevant – just some (pretty) harmless fun. It does NOT mean that the ’success’ of Clare to generate a momentary spike in ‘buzz’ will work for a brand communication campaign. People will see straight through it – zero ‘buzz’. AKA … irrelevant,

What are you measuring with magazines, TV? You measure audience, how many people COULD HAVE have seen your Ad? Huge difference.

What this lady said or did is irrelevant, that she is a sensation is relevant, that the story spread is relevant, how it spread is relevant, why it spread is relevant.

Everyone jumps on it and thinks it’s hilarious and awesome, Bart records a song with MC Hammer, he’s on Conan etc … then a week later everyone is over it due to how inane and pointless it is and it becomes embarassing and tired even for the most committed bandwagon jumper.

As for Clare – by the time you’ve counted it, it’s all over red rover, until “the next big thing” comes along in a week or two.

I only saw it today – loser

So what? Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it has any value.

I fail to see how this is a demonstration of the power of social media. Fame seeking or just plain stupid people have become pop culture icons for short periods forever.

This incident is a huge demonstration of the power of social media, its intensely relevant, and the conversations have gone far further than what a chat in the pub would have, and we can measure them. Of course it shows that people like talking about things. Exactly that’s the point.

Well it looks as if the Ostrich effect has a firm hold in Aus

Given there was probably 400,000 offline conversations about it.

Still – what does it really mean to anyone? After every weekend there’s probably 40,000 discussions about Collingwood losing online and off. I wouldn’t say that “shows how powerful a medium the social web is” it just shows people like talking about things.