But Is It Good?

Seth Godin's post today had these opening lines:

TV advertisers are finally discovering that YouTube + viral imagination = free media.

The good news for you is that money is not a barrier, which means that marketers of any size can play. But the rules are different, as they always are online.

Godin then goes on to list the Dove spot and this new Castrol ad as examples of this new paradigm. 

The biggest shift is going to be that organizations that could never have afforded a national campaign will suddenly have one. The same way that there's very little correlation between popular websites and big companies, we'll see that the most popular commercials get done by little shops that have nothing to lose.

Godin's two examples have nothing to do with "little shops".  The Castrol ad was made by the Perlorian Brothers. Don't know them?  You remember the Denny's Super Bowl ad?  Same guys.  And the Dove ad was created by Ogilvy Toronto.

As the owner of a real "little shop" we do have a lot to lose if the notion that the internet and "low budget" keep getting intertwined.

Now I know Godin was using these top notch examples to show us what works on the internet.

But I think Godin is doing a disservice to viral marketers who are looking to create ads like these on a shoe string. Sure the broadcast pipes are free. But these ads took serious coin to dream up and then execute.  The budgets were not as much as broadcast commercials (perhaps) but people were paid to create something as Godin would say, "remarkable."

As it should be.

Here's a video where the cost was minimal.  The idea was simple: Take a self portrait every day for six years and then make a video of those pics.  It certainly became viral. 6 million hits and counting. Plus the film maker got 64,000 comments.  But I ask you.  After six years in the making, is it good?