CarryOn

We talk a lot, both online and off.  Since an ostensible majority of this discourse in our “connected age” happens online, it follows that phrases from the “real” world slip onto web pages, into videos, vlogs, blogs, Twitters, emails, chats, forums, etc.  Words either remain static in syntax and spelling, like “long tail,” but take on different meaning, or they shift by a few characters to represent a different word entirely, like “phishing,” to convey a different meaning while still drawing on the semantic relationship with the original word (phishing is when cybercriminals “fish” for your information with legitimate looking emails or web pages).  However, my favorite morphology thus far has been the phrase “the Mullet Strategy,” let us explore:   

The phrase seems to have originated with Jonah Peretti, a founder of the Huffington Post who was quoted in a recent article by the New Yorker on the future of print news sources.   The article explains that, like the eponymous hairdo, the Mullet Strategy means, “Business up front, party in the back.”  You might be thinking “What does this have to do with cyberlinguistics and/or more importantly, with media in general?”  Well, Favored Reader, the article goes on to explain how the Mullet Strategy is deployed across the Internet, mostly as a categorization of Web 2.0 companies. In this case specifically, it refers to online news sources like the Huffington Post.  The article continues, “’User-generated content is all the rage, but most of it totally sucks,’ Peretti says. The mullet strategy invites users to ‘argue and vent on the secondary pages, but professional editors keep the front page looking sharp. The mullet strategy is here to stay, because the best way for Web companies to increase traffic is to let users have control, but the best way to sell advertising is a slick, pretty front page where corporate sponsors can admire their brands.’”  The Mullet Strategy then is the business up front of a well designed and tightly controlled home page and the party in back of the unpasteurized and messy bloggers/content providers.  

On another level, the Mullet Strategy represents the tension between traditional ad-rev driven media and emergent forms of social media (user-generated content like blogs, online videos, etc) that in most cases are still clamoring for ways to generate revenue. One must maintain the dignity and integrity of the appearance of the Home(page) to sell a house, despite the kegger raging in the basement.  It’s also no accident that the conceptual space symbolizing the informational backwaters and badlands of the Internet be mapped onto a coiffure, the Mullet, that itself is coded as jocular, and “underclass” (see: www.ratemymullet.com, www.mulletsgalore.com and numerous other humor sites dedicated to the do).  The term is therefore pre-loaded with significance, transferring the ridiculosity (what, I’m not allowed to make up words?) of the Mullet onto the online spaces that the “Mullet Strategy” attempts to describe. Basically, we have recreated the same social codes and mores online that we have offline – just on different people or concepts.  

It will be interesting to follow the trajectory of the term, from a linguistic standpoint, to see what new meanings and social codes the Mullet Strategy adopts.  However, I suspect that as media channels continue to integrate the still relatively “messy” user-generated content and Web 2.0 realms, the mullet will go on, uncut.  Companies across the board will continue to nervously pander to advertisers from the front while anxiously appealing the masses in the back.  Who knows though?  Maybe we will find a smooth and standard way to monetize the messiness and equalize UGC and traditional media, the business and the party.  We may have to move on to different styles of talking and styles of hair…Quick!  Someone figure out how a “Flock of Seagulls” cut is like social networking!  

A recent guest post on TechCrunch by Dan Ackerman-Greenberg, co-founder of a viral video marketing company, touched a nerve with readers. He shared “secret strategies” behind many of the viral videos that appear on YouTube and elsewhere on the Internet. What is striking about the post is that he was willing to share so unapologetically some controversial tactics used to promote viral videos.

Among the shady YouTube tactics Ackerman-Greenberg outlined are the use of misleading titles, creating fake user accounts, creating false controversy by posting phony comments back and forth, deleting comments they don’t like, paying bloggers to post videos and more. The post generated about 500 comments, mostly decrying these tactics.

First, people shouldn’t be surprised that these tactics are being used by some to push viral videos. The ultimate search for marketers is to reach the elusive youth demographic. The potential to reach such a huge audience makes us all consider how to get our message to them.

So, back to the angry response of many TechCrunch readers …

What are they expecting? Don’t most videos that appear on the most viewed page have some agenda? Of course they do. One comment by “rico” says it well: “i know a lot of people would like to keep their youtube experience pure - heaven forbid their viewing of cat videos and snl skits be tainted by marketing, but don’t get angry just because someone figured out how to make money in a creative way.”

YouTube and other social media resources are a great way to reach a lot of people. We think that it is just not worth it to use unethical tactics. It’s a good rule of thumb in PR that if something could embarrass your client if found out, then don’t do it.

Ultimately, good content is key to any viral video’s success. If done correctly, hundreds of thousands of potential customers may view your message. But that is not really the end goal, is it? While stupid videos like this one mentioned by Ackerman-Greenberg may generate a lot of views, we doubt that it is really going to influence the company’s bottom line. It is hard to correlate a large number of views with actual actions taken by consumers, voters, etc. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not worth creating good viral videos. If the video encapsulates your brand well and inspires people to act, it can have a huge impact.

Greenberg states, “You simply can’t expect to post great videos on YouTube and have them go viral on their own, even if you think you have the best videos ever. These days, achieving true virality takes serious creativity, some luck, and a lot of hard work.” Yeah, that is probably true, but we believe that there are more ethical ways of “greasing the wheel.” Doing it the wrong way just gives our profession a bad name and ultimately hurts our clients.

Let us know what you think. Post a comment or two.

Dear PR Student –

I recently read an article by Paul Holmes titled A Manifesto for the 21st Century Public Relations Firm where he very succinctly recapped the Internet revolution and the role of PR, advertising, etc.

His basic premise was that one discipline can never claim ownership of the online medium, but that public relations has failed so far to even make a case for its rightful leadership in developing strategies to help clients make the most of the medium.

The reason he called it “rightful leadership” was because the Internet is really and truly a public relations medium – all about information and education and it gave everyone the opportunity to earn attention. And if something smelled funny, you can call B.S and share your POV on the subject. And now, with the second generation of the Web (buzz word: Web 2.0) being all about community and sharing, I think we all in the industry are fiddling and tweaking and brainstorming and recommending and uncovering (little by little) authentic communication strategies.

With that said, Mr. Holmes’ theory that PR needs to take its rightful throne is truly inspiring, and should be for all of us in the industry, and to those PR students sitting in their PR classes.

How are we going do it? And how will the next generation help us?

I leave you with this thought.

I can’t wait for the day a 21-year old intern comes in for an interview without a single iota of “PR experience” on their resume. Instead, their sales pitch is, “Well, I do have 10 + years of firsthand experience developing UGC content and sharing it with friends, plus bookmarking stuff I like on my del.ic.ious page. I also like to share video and photos with all my friends from my mobile phone. Did I mention I have a personal blog where I review gadgets just for fun? I think it gets about one million views a week.”

You see, PR is not like sports, where a rookie stud can come in and hit 50 homeruns and become a leader right away. In PR, unfortunately maybe, there is a “climb the ranks” approach. But with social media becoming so important, I can almost see the day where the hotshot graduate shoots right up to the clean-up spot in the lineup because they can flat out rake (that’s baseball lingo for hit the ball well).

In fact, I think we are there now…