Bert's Music Business Blog

Actually, Those Walls are Doors

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:34:00 +0000

Words we tend to love:

User created
Open source
Complimentary
Crowdsource

What do these things have in common? They're all in a category of what I've started to call "open doors policy." To our great pride, Gen Y have discovered that you can benefit from giving things away. We do it all the time, often without realizing it. What I'm learning (with much excitement) is that there are more doors to be opened; we typically just assume they're walls.

That is, the status quo has been here for a long time; we're used to certain things belonging to individuals or companies. Before Wikipedia, we assumed that information was transactional -- that one person speaks while many people listen. Wikipedia proved that the wall of content creation was actually a door (and they proved that by opening it). Through that open door, thousands of generous minds poured in. They added themselves to the free workforce -- and as a result, everyone got something great.

Firefox found the browser door. Long ago, Linux found the OS door. Like Wikipedia, these innovators had a huge hurdle -- proving to the naysayers that the wall was a door. Proving they could open the doors and not be looted for it.

Now that they've proven it can be done, the important question is not, "how can we open the doors?" The answer is out there - maybe you should use the Google door to find it. The real trouble -- the next important obstacle -- is that we seem to assume walls when there are doors.

Here's an example: I'm in the beginning stages of writing an album. When I get the songs recorded and ready for mixing and mastering, I'll have a choice: I can wall them in behind a producer. OR, I can open a door: I can release the tracks as open-source, leaving them in a format that any producer can manipulate. What'll happen when a crowd of independent producers start competing for creativity, each applying their own techniques to the same raw material?

Imagine, weeks later, when dozens of song submissions pour in -- when one of the tracks sounds like a techno remix, and one sounds like punk, but one of them sounds like just my style. What should I do with the winners, the duds, and everything in between? Host them all freely (since they'll be on BitTorrent by then anyway); make them available as promo material. There'd be so much more to enjoy because of the open doors.

Here's the real lesson for me, and the biggest challenge: I had planned to keep this idea a secret, ensuring that I'd be the first person to make it happen. But then, I realized I was building a wall. Instead, I wrote this post and opened the door.

And now I can't wait to see someone steal* the idea and use it. I'll owe them a "thanks," not a lawsuit. See, aren't open doors great?

* Note: there is no such thing as stealing an idea. All of my thoughts are public domain. Quick, go make an open-source album!

Welcome back, me!

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:46:00 +0000

Apologies for my silence. I'm back.

I noticed I wasn't enjoying the blogging process anymore. I chose to stop, figure out why, and then decide whether to get back into it depending on the reasons I had for leaving.

Turns out I lost steam on my own writing for the same reasons I was avoiding most of the feeds in my RSS -- it wasn't just boring, though that's also a concern. The main problem: my writing didn't have a story. So here I am, all regrouped and recouped, ready to start letting that story through.

I think the most useful story I can tell is about the things I'm learning.

Here's one: some warnings are supposed to be thoughtfully ignored.

I'm quite close to graduating from college. It's one of those times in your life when everyone thinks it'd be terrific to ask, "What are you going to do next?" They don't realize the depth of emotion that each day holds for me because of that very question. I do my best to answer honestly: "Oh, not quite sure yet," (cue my practiced expression of excitement mixed with apprehension), "but hopefully..." and I list a few ideas that are sitting near the surface that day.

From a good number of their reactions, you'd think I just said I wanted to be an astronaut. I've come to expect that look of doubt, stuck clumsily behind an encouraging smile. Lately I've been padding my ambition with self-doubt just to avoid that look. In some of these exchanges, I even get friendly warnings that whatever I've suggested doesn't happen for many people.

I happen to know a lot of my readers personally, and you're all extraordinary people. From the conversations we've had, I know you're at least as gifted as you are audacious. No doubt you've had this same experience, probably in the past week. Professors, advisors, and mentors are likely to poopoo your boldest plans. Here's my advice to you:

Practice ignoring them. Sure, keep your explanations brief if you must, but don't let the story you tell them become the story you believe. Don't achieve modest goals just to save face. Brush these meetings off, or relish them. Imagine how they'll react when you achieve even more than you promised, and enjoy that anticipation.

Next time you get that nugget of well-intentioned discouragement, smile. Say "yeah, I know." Think to yourself, most of those who fell short listened to this advice. Then get back to work on your dream.

Suggestion Architecture: How to Make People Do Things

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:53:00 +0000

Facebook is working on a new profile, and they've just made the beta version semi-public. (To see what your new profile looks like, visit www.new.facebook.com)

What's interesting is that, as far as I can see, there's not a single new feature; it's just a refreshed look. You might call it a makeover.

At first glance you'll get that awkward "where am I?" feeling, but browse a bit and you'll start to be impressed. Facebook has done something marvellous here with the new design: they've moved interactivity to front-center.

On your own profile, the first thing you'll see on the page is a box that prompts you to update your status (slightly -- okay, majorly -- resembling your homepage on Twitter). When you're viewing a friend's profile, that same entry box allows you to post on the friend's wall (from the top of the profile page, finally).

The end result: every page you visit on facebook (even your own) now makes you positively itchy to type something, to interact. That interaction has always been possible, but never entirely prominent. Until now, status updates held a tiny bit of real estate on the home page; wall posts took a bit of scrolling. These design choices had relegated interactivity to the realm of afterthought.

What this idea points to is the notion of Suggestion Architecture -- using layout and structure to lead people's activities. It's about what the page asks you to do first. The operative question is, "when I look at this page, what am I supposed to use it for?"

Google homepage: "Search."
Twitter: "Post my status."
Myspace: "Seriously, I have no idea."
Old Facebook: "Read the News Feed?" (spy on my friends?)
New Facebook: "Write a message."

It's a fairly smart idea since it'll fuel the number-one reason people visit facebook at all -- to see messages from their friends (in the context of profiles, walls, statuses etc). If page views were the problem, this very architecture was the answer.

But were page views the problem?

Bert sometimes feels feelings, too.

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:36:00 +0000

This is about to take a frightening turn for the personal touchy-feely, so if you're not into that, keep reading and get really uncomfortable.

I learn things from John Mayer all the time. I started reading his (terrific yet short) blog last night at 1:30 and actually cried a tear (of something-or-other). It was such an emo moment. Here's what I learned: John's success in songwriting, in business, and in blogging can all be attributed to a special something.

It's not musical talent. He's got it, but so do millions. It's not business savvy, for the same reason. He certainly does a lot with his abilities, but they're not the end of his story.

The thing that ties it all together is his vulnerability. It's as if he trusts strangers to think on him favorably when they hear an honest, emotional song. Maybe he feels as many fears as I feel when jotting down lyrics that sound a little too true. The difference is, he keeps practicing that vulnerability until he rocks at it. Nowadays when he spills his guts, they look pretty good all over the rug.

Before finding John's blog, I wrote the first lyrics to a new song I'm working on. Toward the end of the second verse, this line came out of the middle of me:

"Try not to live, and maybe you will never die."

And there it was on the page -- every unattempted dream I've buried, every song I didn't write, every girl who ever walked out of my life without knowing my name. It sounds dramatic, and perhaps it is. Not many of those dreams would've become real; not many of those songs would've been much good, and not many of those girls would've given me a second look.

But among all the pitfalls I escaped, I also avoided a few dreams-come-true. I dodged a few blessings among the bullets. John might've felt that sting for a while, too, but he keeps putting himself out there to be bashed and loved and known by millions of people.

Maybe this will be easier if we make a resolution together, you and I (since I'm being openly cheesy with you already). Let's resolve to take all the chances that we're inspired to take. Let's meet life halfway, instead of waiting for it to turn up some luck.

Heartbreak, failure, and pure satisfaction are on the way. Don't flinch.

Capitol caves; we're still cautious.

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:33:00 +0000

Thanks to everyone who spoke out about this, Capitol Records have changed the rules of the contest! This guy's insightful post breaks down the changes like so:

"Recording option" I mentioned, giving Capitol the ability to force signees into a recording deal -- gone. (Check)
No more rights to "edit, adapt, composite, mix, remix, morph, scan, duplicate, alter and/or otherwise modify and commercially exploit your submission, in whole or in part, without any restrictions as to changes" -- also check.
Capitol no longer has the royalty-free right to use your work, but they do have the (reasonable) right to use your image or likeness for promotional purposes only. Check, and check.

Internet: 3. Capitol Records: 0.

Keep in mind, as Andy said, that a fair contract doesn't guarantee fair treatment. Musicians beware; you're still dealing with the same company that tried all of this crap in the first place. My advice is this: don't enter the contest even with the altered rules. You'll get tooled around, and Capitol will win the tussle.

Stop the Capitol Records Scam.

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:10:00 +0000

Tom came to me the other day with a mission, and he wanted my support. Before hearing what he needed, I was already on board because Tom's a good guy, and he has great ideas. After I heard his news, I was livid. I was ready to make a serious ruckus. I'm pretty sure you'll do the same--because frankly, this story is insane, and urgent. And infuriating.

Coldplay is touring this summer to promote their new release under Capitol Records. In order to stoke the fires of fan buzz, the record company is throwing a big contest to choose a local opening act for each major city on the tour route. The contest is video-based and judged by radio stations in the area (big sponsorship dollars from those, and clearly from LiveNation). Bands that want to enter must submit a YouTube video to the special group that Capitol has set up on YouTube. A few lucky winners will get huge exposure opening for Coldplay in a major city.

Sounds fantastic, actually. The whole plan has so many high points-- one, the opportunity to inspire (and find) new talent. Two, the focus on local acts. Three, the promise of merit-based exposure, having nothing to do with how much money or attendance the band can promise the tour. If that was the whole story, I'd sign up in a heartbeat. Tom was about to.

Until he read the contest rules. (Important lesson: always, always, always read the fine print).

He immediately hit up the My Morning Jacket forums for confirmation that indeed, this was the most malicious legal document ever foisted upon an unsuspecting musician. Ahem-- on 496 (and counting) unsuspecting musicians.

The short version: "by entering this contest" you've automatically agreed to the contest rules (thus, implicitly signed a binding contract). Entering only requires a video and some contact info. Thus, video equals signature-- the first red flag.

So, here are all the little barbs they've buried deep within the fine print:

Capitol Records can take your work and change it. They can re-cut, republish, sell, distribute... the list goes on. These priviliges allow Capitol to mangle your music into any form they wish, then sell it or give it away.
They don't have to give you credit. (or show your face, or your name)
They don't have to pay you.
They don't even have to tell you they've used your work.
They can do all of this even with videos that didn't win the contest. So all 500+ entrants are vulnerable to this abuse.

Furthermore, the "Recording Option" section of the rules (still part of the contract you unwittingly sign)--

Up to 60 days after the END of the contest (well into October or after, depending on your city), Capitol can force you into a recording contract.
You can't sign with another label.
You don't get to negotiate publication (royalty) rights.
Capitol picks the producer.
Capitol picks the budget.
All of this can apply to anyone who enters. Even those who don't get to open for Coldplay.

Ridiculous? Infuriating? Urgent? I agree. Nobody knows it's coming, though-- inexperienced musicians invariably don't read these fine-print things, especially when it says "contest rules" instead of "contract" on the link. That's a deliberate decision from the record label; they want as many naive people as possible to wind up under their thumbs. I hope that pisses you off, because there are a thousand other musicians who need to hear about this from you.

Here's how you can help spread the word and keep people from getting burned by this. Just do any of the following that you feel like doing. No guilt trip if you don't-- grassroots campaigns don't run on guilt, they run on pissed-offitude.

Tweet about it. Ask your followers to retweet (pass it on). Here's a tinyURL that will point them to the story: http://tinyurl.com/3mzaol
Tell a friend over instant messenger or Google chat. Make it your status on Skype. Put it in your facebook status.
Post it as a note on Facebook and tag anyone who plays, writes, or sings music. They're the potential victims here.
Join the Facebook group and invite the two musicians you love most.
Email your mom, tell her that she should tell the whole family. Seriously. Moms and forwarded emails are like brushfire and California.
Sign the petition and pass it on. Remember to link to your website or blog. It's a way to put a whole story behind every person who signs, so people will know that this is a connected group, a true movement.
Put the banner on your MySpace, your blog, or your website. Code provided, just copy and paste.
Visit the lens. If you're a Squidoo member already, give it a rating or a comment. That'll help it rise up in the Google results, meaning that people searching for the contest will see the headline "The Coldplay Opening Act contest is a SCAM" and think twice.

[grab this banner]

If you want to be a leader in this campaign, I want you as a partner. Here's what I'm suggesting:

I'd like to start a YouTube contest of a different style-- the "Don't Enter the Video Contest" Video Contest. Users from all around could submit videos of their band NOT entering the contest-- just playing their music and saying a word or two of warning to other bands. Email me (rhhart AT gmail DOT com) if you'd like to lead this contest, help me flesh out the details, and so on.
If you want to help the facebook group spread, invite at least 100 people and I'll make you an officer of the group. Your officer title will be a link to your website or blog, meaning more exposure for you, your band, your blog, or whatever you do online. (notify me when you've invited all those scads of people and I'll officer-fy you). First 25 people only, since Facebook doesn't allow any more officers than that.
We need IDEAS. If you're a crazy marketer with huge dreams, or just an idea person with a passion for this, email me. Tell me what you'd do in order to spread the word. Think BIG. And as crazy as possible. And remember that you don't need my permission to start anything. Just do it, you rogue, and tell me so I can link to you.
Discuss it in the forums-- maybe a few ideas bouncing around will turn into something terrific.

A mistake that could cost you your entire following

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:46:00 +0000

This blog post from the Share Marketing blog showed me that I've been making the very same mistake I've been so infuriated about. If you've ever tried to spread the word about something, anything, using facebook or myspace, read the post. You can't afford not to.

First, I need to eat some crow. This practice of "asking for the order" when it's inappropriate, bugs me to no end. I've written about it (sometimes angrily) here and here. I'm not saying I was wrong to do that-- rather, I was wrong to ignore my own advice. I wrote a post asking for readers to join my new forums (hosted on another site and for a different purpose). I figured I could bother my subscribers for a little easy traffic-- big mistake. You, the reader, don't read this for my benefit, but for yours. Sorry I acted like that wasn't true.

I ignored that advice for the same reason that many others may ignore it-- we count ourselves immune. We think, "I'm not a big corporation, a fast food chain, or a peddler of Viagra; therefore, spam just doesn't apply to me." Of course, by the technical definition of spam, we're right; we haven't sent bulk email to thousands, covertly attaching spyware programs or brochures about penis enlargement. But we're all still vulnerable.

That's because the definition of spam-- a practice that anyone, anywhere, can fall into-- is broader than all of that. It's more like, "sending people messages they don't want to receive" or, as the Share Marketing blog put it so well, asking for the order.

What's the fine line on this? I don't know. I doubt there's a fine line. I think it's more about what people are willing to hear, what they're grateful to hear. That makes it a gray area, which is inconvenient. It means you have to be careful, to avoid alienating your following, to keep the interaction beneficial for everyone else. It means you have to serve people.

Here's what you can do, whether you're a blogger, band, manager, or facebook group admin, to avoid being odious to your followers (fans, members, subscribers).

Emailing or facebook messaging one or all of them? Read this first.
Read, reread, and memorize this post. This one, too, while you're at it.
Ask yourself, "is the subscriber/friend/fan on my mailing list because they want to receive messages like this?"
Question whether you're writing this message because it benefits the recipient, or if you're the focus of this effort.
Remember that spam doesn't just come from strangers.

Good luck, and don't spam.

Why you want fans, not customers.

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:31:00 +0000

"You've got to give the people what they want, Rockstar." --Ben Folds

Maybe he was speaking in his well-known voice of sad sarcasm. Maybe he was giving straight advice. Either way, he was right-- you (the rockstar) have to give the people what they want.

Lots of people are trying for that. We spend our best efforts on the discussion of new distribution models, new ways of delivering [cheap, free, digital, etc] music to customers because that's what they whine about most. Or we do it because we're trying hard to cope with the challenge of inventing (and sometimes preventing) new distribution channels for the internet.

But when rockstars say "people," they shouldn't think of customers, but instead, fans. Fanatics. Followers. The loyal masses, the coveted minds, the avid listeners. The minute a rockstar starts catering to the crowd of folks whose status is "music buyer," he's lost the plot. He's a sellout.

That doesn't make money antithetical (or even irrelevant) to a musician's career; money is no less important to a musician than it is to a banker or a car salesman. The great thing is that the more you cater to fans (not customers), the better your career will go. Period.

Examples:

Apple serves fans (and lovers). Microsoft has customers (fewer with each passing year).
NIN serves fans. Metallica has customers (at least one or two left).
Zappos serves fans. Payless has customers.

EDIT: Tom shares this well-put comment with us, including this page of Metallica's site that responds to the link posted above. I concede that Metallica has fans, indeed, but their actions over the last decade seem (to me) to be catering to the band's checkbook, not to fans (or for that matter, customers). What do you think?

Things I'm learning, Episode 2

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:49:00 +0000

...show off.

If there's something you're great at, don't just be great. Don't just do what you do. Let's say, for instance, that you rock at guitar hero. Well, so do lots of people. One option is to rock harder. That is, be more perfect at playing the game.

The other option, and the one that will pay off most, is to show off. Don't just rock harder. Rock louder. Rock funnier. Rock in an unexpected way, a way that people can talk about. Like this guy:

(Thanks to Rick Toone and his fantastic blog for the video)

Did I share this video because he barely missed a note? Of course not-- there are hundreds of YouTube videos of that. There's only one that's this silly, this cavalier, this original.

It's only fun to watch because he's a showoff. So, I'm learning to show off.

Things I'm Learning, Episode 1

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:21:00 +0000

...that brevity is better than clarity.

More lessons to come.

Viral Marketing Lessons

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Fri, 30 May 2008 02:06:00 +0000

This'll be my second episode of "YouTube Viral Marketing from people who actually know what they're doing." For more on the subject, check out my previous post, about Cracked.com and their outright success in viral marketing on YouTube. It's awesome that somebody has actually figured out how to do this effectively-- spread the word about something using YouTube-- and it's even more awesome that it hasn't come from Suits at Summits, using jargon and repeating the word "fiscal" ad nauseam.

No, it was no such crowd of finger-steepling, suit-wearing detergent salesmen with the overwhelming need to be liked by the internet. Instead, it was Weezer. Thanks to Bryan Higa, I found out about this video long before it was old enough (read: a week) to be considered "old news." You should check out his blog, it's aptly titled: "For Your Entertainment."

And now for the fantastic video:

The cool thing about this video is that it's obviously designed to spread across YouTube like a fire in the Klump house. The amazing thing is that it worked. So how'd they do it? The same way the Cracked video did, so let's see what they have in common. You can think of this as a "How to market virally" checklist:

1. They spoke the viewer's language.
Cracked did it by lampooning a thousand websites and the things we love or hate about them. Weezer's Pork and Beans did it by resurrecting and connecting a dozen well-remembered internet celebrities.

2. They were focused.
It's one thing to make a funny video-- commercials are often (okay, sometimes) funny. And that's entertaining, but it doesn't help anyone take action. Cracked and Weezer both went a step beyond funny by using the comedy to send a message. The Cracked message was never said, but it was clear: "funny stuff comes from Cracked.com." The Weezer message is buried a little deeper in the song: "we recognize and celebrate that the power to make popular now comes from the internet user, not network television." And that's only one of the messages they convey.

3. They were humble-funny.
Cracked made jokes about their own net-reputation, allowing the viewer to side with them. Weezer drew no lines between themselves and the somewhat abused net celebs, embracing (sometimes literally) their bold differences and putting themselves on the level with Star Wars Kid and the Numa Numa guy.

4. What else do they have in common?
You tell me. The comment section is open for business, and the power, as always, belongs to the audience.

Leaders Don't Serve a Purpose

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Sat, 17 May 2008 14:23:00 +0000

I spent the last year being a leader of several someones, and I did only a mediocre job-- meaning I did a terrible job, because most people could have performed just as well without my leadership. If I had read the following post nine months ago, I may have remained the leader of that group. I'm not beating up on myself here; I don't believe in doing that, ever. I'm hoping that someone in a leadership position will read this and learn the best strategy I've found.

There's a notion we have about leaders-- this mental picture resembles a warrior or a king, or maybe a CEO or a rock star. Say the word "leader," and you'll have your listener imagining someone who holds assets like power, respect, sound judgment, decisiveness, expertise, intelligence, insight, wisdom. Great assets to wield, and probably essential in most leadership roles.

This is how leadership looks from the ground floor; when someone's leading you, these are the characteristics you recognize. It looks pretty glamorous, seeing the leader in action-- seeing him kick heads in when something goes wrong, watching people humble themselves when they've screwed up, or seeing people serve that person unquestioningly because of their respect for her. It's a coveted position, and one that many people know (or think) they could do well.

You're waiting for me to tell you that leadership isn't that glamorous, that I know from experience how nerve-wracking and soul-punishing it can be. You're waiting to hear that leadership skills come from hard work and tough, gritty decision making. You expect me to say that leaders work harder than the combined force they lead. Maybe. But that kind of thinking won't get you any closer to (and may in fact draw you away from) the core truth of effective leadership.

See, hard work and tough-guy tactics only make for a person who's difficult to listen to, because he's always pissed that he's doing "all the work around here," which makes him belittle his peers and followers. "But we've got pressing work to accomplish, and how else will I snap these soldiers to attention than to punish the ones who slack?" The main problem here is that nobody has to follow you, though there may be certain situations where people are pressured to appear to follow you, if only to keep their jobs or eventually replace you as leader.

The core truth of leadership, the one I should have known if I was to keep my position:

Leaders don't serve a purpose; they serve people who have a purpose.

That's the difference between belittling people for slacking, and re-orienting people toward their purpose when they lose track. It's the difference between honing your expertise so you won't be outdone by your followers, and educating yourself so you can better provide insight to those who need it for their goals. It's the difference between a restrictive policy that keeps people from usurping your throne, and creating an environment where leadership directives take only 1% of the time so that meaningful work can take the other 99%.

Yes, leaders need expertise, power, respect, and all the Russel-Crowe-in-Gladiator characteristics that make the job look glamorous.

But the most glamorous part of all, and the most rewarding, is serving people who have a purpose. When all your other leadership assets are employed toward that end, the result isn't just a successful company or a killer app or a note-perfect band. The result is a group that makes a difference, and a leader who can barely take credit for it-- because the purpose was in the group all along.

Virtually Unlimited or Actually Unlimited?

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Wed, 14 May 2008 21:19:00 +0000

Dear Reader,

My blog allows you read posts as often as you want, for as long as you want. Aren't you grateful? Of course not. Unlimited access is typical.

But what if it weren't? What if some blogs only allowed you to read two posts per day, so that you had to keep coming back day after day to read more? Would you suddenly notice that mine were different? Actually, you still wouldn't. Infinity is so far from two that they're in different categories. One's a hard number, and the other's barely even a picture.

But if other blogs allowed you two reads per day, and mine allowed you two dozen, you'd think I was generous. Especially if the top of my page said, "You're welcome to read up to 24 posts today." Nevermind that this practice would be inane in the context of the actual blogosphere-- as you may have already guessed, I'm not really talking about blogs.

Starbucks has announced that it will be providing 2 free hours of consecutive wireless internet use per day to customers who use their Starbucks cards at least once a month. Translation: if you have a Starbucks card, which is free, and you drink at least one cup of coffee per month, you can go into any Starbucks in the world (by the end of 2008) and use the internet for 2 straight hours without being hassled by baristas or blocked out of the network.

There are a ton of benefits for Starbucks doing this-- it strengthens the brand, forms ties with AT&T, draws customers in so they'll smell the coffee and drink more, and on and on.

But more than that, it sounds generous. Two hours is such a generous offer that it might as well be unlimited.

Might as well be. I'm not complaining; if it were unlimited, we wouldn't be compelled to stay for three hours instead of two. No, I'm actually applauding Starbucks for their carefully crafted message.

It's the same message you get from Google's Gmail when you visit the site for the first time (not logged in). There's a number on the side of the page-- always rising-- that tells you the exact capacity of the Gmail inbox. It tells you the ever-loftier ceiling on the data you can store on Google's servers. It's virtually unlimited.

That's the big message. At first when I contemplated this, I thought, "I'm only using 4% of my Inbox capacity, as surely most Gmail users are. Why not simply call it unlimited? They certainly can afford to remove all limits for storage, since none of us is going to suddenly pack the servers with a data glut once we get unlimited space."

I save almost every email I get, and I take my jolly time at Starbucks, and I still don't come close to the limits they've set. I don't even have time to abuse unlimited surf time, nor do I have the data necessary to abuse unlimited data capacity. None of us does. Evidently, the limits aren't there to curb abuse.

You know what I suspect? I think the limits are arbitrary, but purposefully low. Starbucks limits your internet so you'll be aware that internet access is costly (but they make the limits lenient so you'll be blown away by their margin on the competition [whoever that is]). What Starbucks knows is that if their internet service is unlimited, then it's barely a feature of their store at all; it makes them just like the public library. "Sure," you'd say, "they'll give you free wireless. But so will my University, and theirs doesn't come with the obligation to buy coffee." Tuition, maybe, but not coffee.

Instead, they impose arbitrarily selected, unprofitable limitations because their drawing lines helps you compare them to the rest of the pack, who draw more restrictive lines. Placing loose boundaries, which don't truly restrict your behavior, causes you to realize how far ahead of the competition they really are.

The Starbucks page I linked to before mentions that users without a Starbucks card can pay $3.99 for a full two hours of internet service. That price barely matters, except as a margin for comparison. Holiday Inn's lobby-level internet cafe, for example, charges 20 cents per minute of use for their own guests-- six times as much as Starbucks charges for unregistered users who don't even have to buy a cup of coffee. At the cost of internet access these days, neither business is paying a mathematically significant degree of overhead. But again, I wouldn't have the opportunity to say "six times as costly" if Starbucks wireless were free.

Free is, in some cases, ignorable. "Cheap" is ignorable, too. But cheapest by far is remarkable.

Maybe "Exploit" IS the Wrong Word

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Sat, 10 May 2008 16:56:00 +0000

I understand that it's just lingo, that the A&R reps don't mean it when they talk about "exploiting" a record. Maybe you've heard the term used before, and if so, it was probably qualified with a little speech about "what I mean by 'exploit' is..." but that's just to say that everyone using the term thinks it's the wrong word for what it describes. At least, when it's used outside the office.

I've heard the disclaimer a few times from a few sources, from Columbia biggies to the indie label owners/managers/janitors. Anybody giving a speech or hosting a panel discussion will clear the table of any misunderstanding by telling you, "When we say 'exploit,' we mean plug, promote, spread-- basically, it's good for the artist to have their records exploited because exploitation makes them profitable."

Of course, we know this speech doesn't come up in the studio or the office every time someone mentions the word. When the head A&R guy asks his guys assigned to a band, "What are we doing to exploit the Noseful of Feathers album?" nobody stops to say, "and by 'exploit' he really means promote." Instead people hear it once, adapt to it, and carry on. They only carefully define the word for outsiders.

And that's the problem. Inside the office, we forget that it's a different word. We go on using 'exploit' because it's a packaged-up version of all the verbs we'd hope to apply to the band's product, so it's easy to say. That doesn't change the fact that it's still attached to its real meaning: to take advantage.

I'm not suggesting we start getting politically correct with the music business-- we'd have a long way to go. But with the bad rep that record labels already have (as organizations that take advantage of artists and profit from their creativity at any cost to the consumer or the musician), shouldn't we be a little more careful about the way we discuss art?

Maybe the way we talk really does affect the way we think. There's a broader application here: don't just call a thing what it is-- name it in a way that keeps your mind on its function.

Marketing From Your End

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:06:00 +0000

It's a strategy, not a department, and it can make or break all of the following:

- Authors
- Politicians
- Activist groups
- Bands
- Consumers

Yeah, consumers use marketing too. I've never heard anyone talk about it as marketing, but that's precisely what's happening. On the leading edge of trend adoption, you always find the early adopters doing what we like to call "touting." Touting equals marketing.

Ever twittered about a great movie? Called someone because you found their next rare album on sale at a record store? Recommended a restaurant based on the service? Made someone a mix CD (or a Muxtape) of music they just had to hear? You were marketing. You were spreading ideas with the intent of changing people's behaviors.

The populist marketing habit might seem like a behavior reserved for the militant indie music fan, bent on a reign of obscure bands with innocuous names. It's not only for fanatics, though; it's just more subtle coming from the sane. What you don't realize is how important it is. Not to the brand you're spreading-- I mean it's important to you, the supporter, the idea-spreader.

We do it for three reasons (that I can find). They are:

1. Affirmation
Who doesn't like being the starter of a killer trend, or the one who got all their friends to finally go see Juno before it was widely loved? It's a cheap thing to brag about, sure. But it feels great to share something and later be proven right. I can't claim to have never done this, and be honest, neither can you.

2. Generosity
You've found something you can selflessly recommend to someone, knowing that person will be deliriously happy with the thing you tell them about. Great reason indeed, and one that marketers should always be trying to inspire in their customers. But let's face it: some people won't go out of their way for this reason alone, so it's a tough one to count on.

3. Loyalty
This is the one that (corporate) marketers should be trying so hard to secure: your loyalty to the company, the brand, or the product. This is the very reason Mac users won't shut up or take the stickers off their cars (love you mackies). It's the reason so many music fans tell you to go buy the album now (but no way will they copy it for you, that would be stealing from the band they love). They're not thinking of their own affirmation or even your pleasure; they love this thing, whatever it is, so much that they'll make themselves borderline unapproachable in order to support its spread.

Customer, why do you spread ideas?
Company, why does your customer spread your ideas?
What would make someone love you enough to spread your ideas for nothing in return?

What a Candidate Will Have to Say to Get My Vote

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:56:00 +0000

So far I'm unimpressed (at best) with all three political candidates. They know just how to pander, and pandering makes me vomit. Here's what I want: I want the hard, bare-knuckle, balls-to-the-wall truth that nobody talks about except rude radio personalities. I want to be forced into a decision right when I hear the pitch, not once I've figured out what they're actually plugging. I want to be cast into an all-out, here's-what-matters battle of resolve. I want this to be a tough election. In short, here's the message I want to hear, from any candidate, before I'll vote for them:

"Voting for me is a promise. It's mutual-- you make me a promise, and I'll make one in return.

You promise to listen to the hard, uncomfortable truth; I'll promise to tell the truth straight, comfortable or not.

You promise to vote with your country's interests, not your own; I'll promise to lead with my country's permission, not my cabinet or my wallet.

You promise to change the way you purchase, recycle, drive, and manage your resources to save the graying environment; I promise to do the same myself, and to reward everyone who helps.

You promise to manage your money for yours and your family's future, not for today; I promise that I'll manage the budget for the country's future, not the present drought or the temporary plea for tax breaks.

You promise to stay abreast of current events and to stay engaged with your senators and congressmen; I promise to hold Washington accountable for its actions.

You promise to use your money to vote for ethical businesses; I promise to create government incentives for fair trade.

You promise to hold to your faith, your values, and your family; I promise never to impose a faith on you.

You promise to support this country and its freedom whether you think it deserves it or not; I promise that together, we'll deserve it."

There are three problems with this campaign message: (1) It's challenging, and America just wants to feel comfortable, (2) It's prosperous, and America just wants to feel rich, and (3) It's ethical, and America just wants to feel righteous.

The Last 10%

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:04:00 +0000

Post has been shelved for the time being. It'll be back with revisions in a short while.

Who's the Industry Standard?

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:40:00 +0000

You're the very best in your class; you've mastered that one specialized asset that puts you ahead of everyone else who's trying for it. Odds are, this is where you're going to fail.

The usual response is to coast on that high, assuming that peak will keep your business ahead. That's what IBM, GE, and Atari did. IBM has fallen behind; so has GE. Atari rested too long, and the market kept racing ahead of them.

The same is happening now with Microsoft, Folgers, and of course, the music industry. The story goes: a company becomes the standard and cashes in. They've hit their target, so they sit right on it. Since they've found success, they've got something to lose; change becomes very scary, so they refuse to change. Next, the market shifts (as it always does) while the "standard" waits behind, assuming they still define their market. Eventually a new company hits the target, and we see the process renewed. Hit, sit, wait, and fall behind.

Or maybe it's even worse than that. For some, it's a sense of entitlement, not security. Microsoft, for instance, released Vista this generation with crippling, disgusting results. And they stand by their terrible product because they believe they are the standard. They've even decided to discontinue XP, the operating system most embraced by those they serve. Instead of making themselves compatible to customers' lifestyles, preferences, and previous experiences, they force customers to recalibrate to Microsoft's new compatibility standards.

The solid truth of every market is that no business is ever the standard; the customer is the standard. If you're not compatible with the customer's needs, you're irrelevant.

What are the implications for the music business? Well, certainly not to sue the customer until he changes his mind about who the standard is. I'll say it again: the customer is the standard.

Surfing for Webmasters

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:35:00 +0000

We talk about "web surfing" as something that people do when they browse the internet aimlessly. I think surfing works way better as an analogy for the careful webmaster.

There are two opposing and dangerous tendencies, I think, for the typical webmaster. One temptation is to obsess over traffic, stats, and clickthroughs, reacting to every tiny change in the site's visitation trends. The tenacious webmaster tends to get so desperate about traffic and visit length, he'll clutter the front page with eye-gouging graphics and "notice me" banners.

The desperate webmaster is a nervous surfer, riding the board a little too stiffly, surging out into the realms of spam and high clutter to avoid the impending crash of the wave behind him. That crash represents anonymity-- his once-loyal readers forgetting that his blog exists. He can't let that happen, so he spams the life out of his own feed subscribers with twice-daily blog posts, whether or not he has anything to say. When I'm not careful, this is exactly what I turn into online: the nervous surfer. And to see it from the shore, the nervous guy looks pretty silly. Surfing is supposed to be fun.

The other tendency webmasters may have is to sit back a bit and watch the traffic stroll slowly in (or to ignore traffic altogether). His thought: the page is already fine, so let's not ruin a good thing. Took me forever to get it looking like this. However, the strategy of making a page just perfect (and then leaving it there, untouched) is an outdated one, says Neal Stewart. People on the internet do, after all, crave fresh material. It's about the only thing that keeps them moving from site to site; the only thing bringing them back to yours is the promise of new material once they've exhausted the archives.

This kind of webmaster is the lazy surfer, who sits back on his board, loses speed, and eventually sinks right into that wave behind him. Crash, anonymity.

While the lazy surfer is crashing back, the nervous surfer is crouching forward and outrunning the wave itself. Instead of forgetting him, his readers will soon actively avoid his site, block his emails, and unsubscribe from his feed. He gets out into open water, his momentum subsides, and he sinks slowly and shakily into the foam.

The lesson? Webmastering, like most activities, requires a careful and calm balance. If you outpace your readers, they'll lose the will to keep up; if you let them outread you, they'll lose interest and quit coming back.

Proving this balance, a Wired article published two days ago (thanks for the link, Adam) explains a breakthrough program that organizes your learning process for you. The human memory, says the research, learns a new thing best with the perfect length of time between reminders. If you wait too long to refresh your memory on something, you'll have to relearn it entirely. Less obvious, though, is the fact that if you don't wait long enough before refreshing your memory, the refresher has little to no effect beyond the sticking power of the first impression.

Maybe I could quote this study to convince Taco Bell to run fewer commercials.

News on the Blog

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:19:00 +0000

Let's call it "Blogress," where a blog makes progress. To my new subscribers: sorry for the shameless plug-- this is not how my posts normally go. I hope you'll stick around and read my other posts, which are meaty and delicious.

So, two items of great news:

First,
"Bert Thinks Thoughts" is being featured right now among the Top 10 Generation Y Blogs, along with gems like Ben Casnocha and the Big Slice of Awesome. If you'd like to help out:

1. Go to the Gen-Y Blogs page,
2. Rate the page (generously), and
3. Vote for "Bert Thinks Thoughts" in the poll.

While you're there, you should check out the other blogs on the list-- all of them are top quality, targeted to Generation Y/Millennials, and regularly updated.

Second bit of news,
I've been invited to join a prestigious blog network called the Brazen Careerist. The site is host to over a hundred great blogs (also for/from Generation Y), and has been featured in the New York Times and other press. I feel honored to have their invitation, and I've accepted. In a matter of days, Bert Thinks Thoughts will be listed on the Careerist blogroll!

Formula for Insight

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:45:00 +0000

Be wary when people tell you they have a formula for something. Be even more wary when people tell you there are no formulas. There are plenty of formulas; most of them are just wrong, or incomplete, so the rest get a bad reputation.

Here's a formula to increase your probability for insights. Insights are pretty necessary for success, unless you're intent on the hand-grenade model-- lobbing hard work and gobs of money into random locations until you get lucky and blow the right thing up. In the process, you're likely to damage something valuable. Try the insight approach, which is like using a sniper rifle. It takes planning, practice, and skill. And most importantly, it takes insight-- the right vantage point from which to fire. Here's how to seek out that vantage point:

First, have problems. You'll need a major one, which peeves you regularly, and for which there are corollary problems that complicate things further. Remember that problems and messes are distinct from each other. Messes are obvious, large, and have multiple causes; problems are often hidden by messes, and they make more messes in order to hide themselves. Example problem: "Customers can't distinguish between product A and product B." Example mess: "Sales are down." Keep your sights on the problems for now.

Second, you'll need to identify how people currently deal with the problem. If their solution doesn't exasperate you, you're on the wrong track, or you haven't found the center of the problem. Find something terribly wrong with the way people handle it (or ignore it). Try not to criticize out loud (just yet), but it's okay to be exasperated.

Third, quit blaming those people for the problems. They're not the cause for the issues at hand, and they can't be faulted for trying to solve them. They just haven't hit the right solution yet. This step is exceedingly hard for me-- and as you'll see from my comments on the music industry, I often forget that the industry leaders aren't the causing the problems, and they're often as frustrated as I am about solving them.

Fourth, look outside the mess for a solution. If you're staring straight at the problem all the time, the solution will be just out of view all the time. Scouting for a proper vantage point means keeping your mind on the issues while you take your focus elsewhere. Be ready to change your mind about the problem itself; new perspectives may show that your problem isn't the problem, but part of a mess. Re-targeting is okay. Sticking to your guns when your aim is off-- that's not okay.

At this point, finding a vantage point feels like getting lucky, but don't be fooled. It takes skill and intent to find insight (a great deal more skill than the grenade approach).

When you've found your vantage point, the solution will be simple. Guns fire in straight lines-- so if the solution isn't simple, you don't have an insight yet. Keep in mind that "simple" does not mean "easy," nor does it mean "obvious." It only means "uncomplicated."

Now put the pin back in, put the grenade away, and get scouting.

Squidwho?

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:44:00 +0000

If you're wondering what the next useful web tool will be, I've got a lead for you. The site is called Squidoo, and it's refreshingly different. It lets people create interactive pages about anything they want. Several reasons to use Squidoo:

It's charitable. The site collects revenue through advertising, amazon sales, Cafepress, and other web-based streams, and donates 5% of all (gross, not net) revenue to charity.
The site only keeps 45% of revenue for profit/expenses, and gives the other HALF to the person who created the page hosting the ad. (That person can choose to donate to charity or keep the money for himself)
It's user-friendly as all get out.
It's one of the fastest growing new sites on the web, with over 450,000 individual pages.
It's a wide-open platform for the most creative projects you can imagine. If you own a business, post on a blog, play in a band, or pay rent, you can profit from using Squidoo.

I've just finished collaborating with Jess to make these two great Squidoo lenses-- we've spent all afternoon pouring ourselves into them.

One is about how to give great customer service-- what businesses can do to truly amaze their customers.

The other is how to get great customer service. So often, customers get frustrated and give up, but many of the problems in the customer/business relationship can be fixed on the customer's end (and everybody wants great service). For these first lenses of ours, we've decided to give 100% of the revenue to charity. Maybe I'll make money from my second or third lens, we'll see.

Since this is a new mission of ours-- customer service-- Jess and I have decided to start a blog on the subject. We'd love to inspect how everyday business experiences can teach people about offering, and receiving, superior service. For me this is really about people getting along in the corporate world with the same standards that they have for their relationships.

By linking multiple networking tools together (the twitter, the blog, and the squidoo lenses), we're using a whole-package approach to web traffic. The first step to changing things, after all, is getting the word out. Right now, those pages look a little sparse because they were just launched today-- but pretty soon, they'll be buzzing with great advice on treating people with the love they deserve.

If you think it's a worthy cause, help us out by sharing it with someone.

Community Radio

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:47:00 +0000

...or something.

I was reading (again?!) a blog (what else?) about the music business-- okay, seriously, the beginning of this post is practically the same as all the others I write. But the idea I've just had is pure, it's positive, and I want to give it away (possibly to you if you're gutsy). Keep reading; I feel truly inspired right now and I want the whole world to hear it. So, deep breath.

First, the blog that got me going on this. Bob Lefsetz is a surging river of passion for music, and he's equally impassioned against those who get it wrong. He's rarely organized, always flummoxed, and intentionally inflammatory. In short, his blog is awesome. Go read it. The whole thing. I'll wait.

I was catching up on his last few posts, and ran across this one about the stupidity of radio. Bob summarizes our whole decade with this line: "You wonder why radio is in trouble. It still believes it’s functioning in the happy news era of the seventies, like the Internet never happened." I love that, because the internet isn't something that got added to our culture; it's a movement that happened to us. It's not an ingredient, it's a total climate change. Nobody can afford to operate as if the internet doesn't exist.

And yet, like Bob says, they do act that way. You might be able to name a few of your area's radio stations, and inevitably, you'll know their slogans and catch phrases. Every single one is a variation on "All the hits from _____." It does have a positive ring to it, but in the post-internet world it's irrelevant, whether these songs are hits or oldies. Either way, we've already heard them. If we were in the mood to hear songs we already knew about, we'd use our iPods. The bonus is that an iPod lets you tell it what to play next. This fact is nothing new, except that radio stations act like it's not their job to beat the iPod at something. They also act like their job hasn't changed one bit.

The Old Way:
Pre-internet, the radio was a way of experiencing music you already knew and loved, because it was one of the only ways to digest music and single out the songs you were eager to hear without having to own entire albums or constantly change records to hear some diversity. Post-internet tech has replaced that functionality with things like on-demand programming and iTunes. And the new formats are better because they let you drive, instead of some DJ whose voice you don't even like.

Why Lose Control?
The only reason to surrender control now is for discovery. If you knew exactly what you wanted to hear, you'd pick it yourself. Letting someone else drive is about going somewhere you haven't been before, with a trusted friend who knows the way. But terrestrial radio still doesn't do that job. The radio tycoons are not aware of this "internet" thing and the shift it has caused, but it wouldn't matter if they were. They're huge, they're national, and they're too transparent to have any personality. There's no way you could consider these stations your "trusted friend" since they're just responding to popularity contest results themselves (and propagating the very mess they follow). No, you need somebody else to help you discover.

What I'm leading up to is something you're actually familiar with-- you've had the version with skin on. Friends are the primary way that most people get their music recommendations. We figure out who has similar tastes in music, and we'll sit and talk with those people about bands that nobody else has fallen in love with yet. We discuss our tastes, our recent discoveries, and our old favorites. Most of the time, we relate bands we've found to bands they know of, which is telling. It shows that we're all aware of a musical ecosystem with taxonomies of culture, instrumentation, mood, and region. We'll say things like, "You haven't heard of Fleet Foxes? Well, they're like an Appalachian family band on codeine cough syrup, plus an extra tambourine." I don't know if that's true.

Well, radio could be that. Not in its current form, with the great white ClearChannel owning and depersonalizing every frequency. But imagine something for a moment.

Personality Beats Statistical Popularity
Imagine a whole radio station that is not built on songs (or pure advertising dollars), but on people. The ambitious station manager hires thousands of aspiring DJs trying to find the five kids with the most personality (and the most coherent and enjoyable tastes in music).

The whole station is built on the idea of creating a relationship with the listener. DJs tell short stories about great concerts or upcoming bands. They give the background on each song they play (quickly enough to hold your interest), and then they spin the stuff they want to hear. When not behind the mic, their entire job is to discover and discriminate-- to find the very best music, especially local bands with great stories to tell. And their job is also to say no to the top-40 stuff.

Saying No means Having a Niche:
They should reject the notion that they should supply the average listener with average music. There are 20 other stations in town competing for that market; why not be the specific station, the niche station.

Now imagine a whole town full of these niche stations. 20 or more truly different streams of music, all with DJs who have personality and spirit of their own. You'd probably get to the point where you preferred to listen at certain times to certain stations because you felt such a kinship with a particular DJ and her taste. Maybe you'd schedule parties on certain nights of the week knowing you could turn on X.XX FM and have something great (and new!) to dance to. The whole idea would be discovery. "Blockbuster" would be the dirty word of the industry. "Fresh" would be everybody's goal.

It could even get to the point where it would be syndicated to other towns or on the internet. Some small station (say, in Athens GA) would get recognized for playing really fantastic local acts, and people in Denver and Seattle would take notice. Soon, the whole town would be on everyone's playlist.

I know there's a market for it. People are hungry for new music, for fresh media experiences, and especially for personality. What they absolutely do not want, however, is safe bets.

Hey you-- go start a radio station.

Exclusive

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:21:00 +0000

What's more appealing:

A) Being a part of an exclusive experience, or

B) Owning a limited-edition item?

I have a limited edition John Mayer poster on my wall cataloging the 2007 winter tour. Would I rather go to the concert, or own the poster (#116 of 250)? Concert, hands down. But the poster is still fantastic.

Last night I tried a $10 beer, also a limited edition. Released by Terrapin breweries (local to my beloved Athens), the Hop Shortage Ale was brewed as a special release-- never to be brewed again. There was a lot of physical sensation in the experience of it: cracking through the gorgeous gold foil over the cap, pouring the monstrous thing, smelling it with anticipation, and the first glorious taste. I have to admit, knowing that the beer was rare made it a little harder to ignore the overwhelming taste. I knew I had to savor the moment.

I could have traded that whole experience for the possession of the beer. If I'd wanted, I could have kept the gold foil intact. It might have even been worth something someday. But then how attached would I feel to Terrapin as a taste maker? They're not in the collector's bottling business, after all.

If you're going to offer something exclusive, make it a one-time experience, not a 250-time possession. Stories are worth more than things.

Cracked Shows Us How to Market Virally

noreply@blogger.com (bert) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:22:00 +0000

This fantastic video, made over at Cracked.com, is both viral and marketing. Very uncommon.

There's some bad language, so it's probably not safe for work. Still hilarious though. The premise is that all of the internet's websites are having a house party. (Hmm, sounds familiar.)

Like I said, it's rare that anybody has success with viral marketing. This video, according to the Cracked.com editor David Wong, is generating unprecedented traffic on Cracked. What impresses me about the video, besides how hilarious it is, is that it worked. What went right?

1. Cracked knows its audience.
Notice how perceptive these jokes are about opinions we already have-- the jabs at the creepiness of Facebook, the sluttiness of Craigslist, the unreliability of Wikipedia. The list goes on, and for each joke, the writers ("Those aren't Muskets" writing/video team) demonstrate that they get it. They even know how obnoxious the comments on their own video are going to be (Jeeves: "Gay.") They can land all the in-jokes.

2. Cracked knows itself.
The self-aware joke, "And the 6th most underrated Smurf..." is an admission to several complaints often seen at Cracked. The site makes its bacon with list-related articles, rankings, and often-useless pop culture trivia. It's a delight, really, but it draws a lot of negative buzz from the squeakier wheels in the comments area. Being able to laugh at themselves is a huge part of the Cracked brand, and it's endearing to their readers. Notice that Cracked didn't convey itself as the life of the party, snagging dates and flashing smiles-- that would have been vain self-promotion, and immediately scorned by YouTube viewers as a shameless plug.

3. The advertising is a service in itself.
Conveniently, the best way to advertise for comedy is to make people laugh. You haven't been sold a pitch, you've been given a sample. A delicious sample. And the video makes it obvious that you can find more at Cracked.com.

4. The video makes a (polite, subtle) call to action.
Instead of pasting a "SHARE THIS ON DIGG!" banner right before the credits, the video just makes a memorable (and again self-aware) joke about its suspicious popularity on Digg. This memorable joke prompted the viewers to actually share the video-- as you can see with the record-breaking success of its Digg count (at the time of this writing, it's approaching 10,000). The call to action would have been less effective if it had been more obvious, mostly because viral marketing shuts down the minute you tell someone to do it. Instead you have to simply make it possible and hope you've done a good job on the content.

5. The video is inevitably addressed to its users.
Whether you found the video through Digg, through Youtube, or on Cracked itself, you're going to feel like a part of the comedy because all those sources are mentioned. Actually, the video gets the whole internet involved, so it would be hard to feel like an outsider at all with this one. Therefore, as a sneezer of the ideavirus, you're going to feel compelled to participate because you're mentioned. The important fact is that you're not sharing someone else's video; at this point, you're sharing your video.

6. The content is (very much) worth watching.
Above all the other criteria, this one is the most important-- and the most difficult to achieve. Without good content for a video, there's no reason to share it. This one hits the mark, though: the performances are spot-on, the writing is well-paced, the jokes are original but relevant. Even the premise is funny, sort of. The whole experience is eye-grabbing, quotable, and worth sharing even if you hate Cracked (which you probably won't). Who could resist sharing it?

Nobody, apparently.

What other viral videos have been effective at both the viral and the marketing? Leave a link in the comments and I'll hug ya.