People often refer to YouTube as the world’s second most popular search engine, but is it really a search engine? People don’t search for ‘builder in Auckland City’ or ‘movie times in Wellington’ like they do on Google or Bing. Most people tend to be pointed to YouTube via another source, be it Facebook, Twitter, word-of-mouth or even (shock horror) email. I would personally call YouTube a video sharing platform.

More importantly for marketers, is YouTube an effective weapon in their arsonary? Many consultants, and certainly people at YouTube, will tell you that it’s critical mass makes it a great target for marketing campaigns. But is it a realistic target?

Everyone knows that getting a video to go viral is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. YouTube is a wall of white noise with the sheer amount of content uploaded every minute of every day. More important, though, is that the branded videos that have gone viral have all either had significant above-the-line support or used homepage ads on YouTube. Let me give you two examples (both, coincidentally, featuring babies).

Seen the hilarious series with babies promoting online stock market trading service E*TRADE? One of the videos has had nearly six million views. Amazing promotion and exposure for the company. Know what kicked off the viral effect? A half-time ad during Super Bowl, the most expensive TVC slot in the world. How about that cool Evian video (22 million views) with the babies roller-skating around the park; that didn’t have any traditional above-the-line expenditure right? Correct, but it did have exclusive homepage ads in YouTube’s seven most popular regions (US, UK, Australia etc.)

A rubbish, uninventive, over-branded video won’t go viral even if it has tons of extra promotion. However, how realistic is it for most companies to back their video in the way that E*TRADE and Evian did? Especially in a country like New Zealand that is primarily made up of SMEs.

YouTube is great, but I wouldn’t put it at the centre of any marketing campaign. With more and more content being uploaded and the increase in movie and TV rentals available, it appears that using YouTube as a marketing platform is going to be even more difficult without millions of dollars of supporting collateral.  

Do you think YouTube should be called a search engine and what do you think of it as a marketing platform?

I recently came across this survey by PR agency Burson-Masteller on London-based Social Media agency, Fresh Networks blog.

In my opinion, many of the best examples of Social Media leverage are by small to medium businesses. Perhaps this is due to their nimble nature and the entrepreneurial skills of the staff or it could be they are more likely to look for cost-effective marketing tools. Whatever the reason, this survey shows it is pretty rare for Global Fortune 100 companies not to be using Social Media. A whopping 88% of the European companies surveyed are using one, if not more, of the following: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and corporate blogs. However, in the Asia-Pacific region, this figure is just 50%.

Interestingly, half of the companies have a YouTube channel, which is another indicator of the growing power of online video integration.

Probably the most surprising stat for me is that only a third of companies surveyed have corporate blogs. While it’s always tricky to get ongoing input from time-poor Senior Management teams, corporate blogs are a much under-used tool. Social Media isn’t just about reaching the maximum number of people with your message. It can also be about providing a platform for journalists and investors, as well as other influencer and interest groups.

I’m not sure why, but the Asia-Pacific region seems to be more switched on to the benefits of corporate blogs, with 50% of the Global Fortune 100 participating.