Flock dabbles with Viral marketing…

This is a hilarious video and a great marketing idea by a ‘web-centric’ company using a very popular online website and offline Icon to reach a broad audience of ‘soft-users’.

‘Soft-users’ is a term I use to refer to Internet users that just use the web for 1-3 purposes and maybe even know about 5-10 sites at most. These users are slow to adopt new technologies and sites and usually blockbuster brands are needed to raise their awareness e.g. Yesterday: Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL; Today: Google, YouTube, and MySpace.

In this case Flock used YouTube as a vehicle for their marketing program. Great job and funny enough that it could become viral given the right set of circumstances

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Digg acts more like Google and less like a social media site

Today I read the below blog post and was shocked.  SHOCKED!  Apparently Digg is practising the digital version of a witch hunt on SEO sites.  This isn’t on, and I have to say I absolutely disagree with this practice.  Digg has a very natural vetting system, its call Digging, and I know that if an SEO article gets Dugg 50 or a 100 times + then its worth my time to read it.  I may not be happy having read it but that’s anyone’s opinion and I can always ‘UnDigg’ it if I feel strongly about it.

Digg, get a grip, if you want to go down this path and it is a bit childish, then ban users that continue to publish from a single domain (probably their domain), but just chasing SEO sites and enforcing permanent bans is just bad practice.

What are your thoughts?

The hypocrisy of digg and spam
Posted by Lee Odden
Dec 20th

More aggressive SMO marketers often talk about being careful not to get user accounts banned on digg. But what about the domain name? Banning user accounts has to do with the actions of the user. That is, behaviors and actions the user can control.

However, a domain name brings into other considerations. For example, whether or not influential members of the digg community like or don’t like a certain site or topic, regardless of what the mass of digg users respond to in the form of story submissions and votes. The site or blog owner has little control over whether other people submit stories and/or vote on them, bury them or report them as spam. Even if they’re not.

Sites can be banned from having their stories submitted to digg based on the activities of others having nothing to do with the site owner.

I recently learned from a top digg member that certain digg community members decided to start getting rid of SEO sites by emailing spam complaints to digg. These community members definition of spam blogs is not what you might think. As long as the site has to do with SEO, they apparently consider it spam because the digg community generally detests anything to do with SEO.

Source: The hypocrisy of digg and spam – Online Marketing Blog