Great post by the way. I'm a little confused though ... and maybe I have it all wrong. But are we saying that online content can be useless b/c it may not contribute to sales etc.? I agree that one shouldn't be obsessed with #s of views but more about viewers do after they've seen spots online, further highlighting the importance of more actionable CTAs.

"...it is clear that this context adds considerably to the success of the content."

Are you sure? I've read arguments that say that receptivity increases when advertising is voluntarily viewed as part of a pleasurable experience, rather than in a defined ad break when viewers can easily 'disengage'.
The research results will be interesting.

Content = what
Context = location / occassion

What's still missing in the analysis is "Why". Can the questions you've raised be answered without taking the goal into account?

Cat - I'm interested to know more. Can you post where these were cited?

That's a very interesting question. Does the knowledge of an advertising spot affect the way it is viewed.

Perhaps a secondary question is then: Once people can identify an ad/sponsored content from a random video, does the same thought then follow? By understanding the nature of a video gone viral, they also understand that they are being sold to in the same way as a TV ad. Particularly as many popular online ads end up/start on TV.

Surely it depends on the content?

Not all ads are "sponsored creativity" - though the ones that have had the biggest viral success recently are (e.g. Cadbury's eye brows).

The point of advertising is to sell. It does this by articulating a unique selling point which differentiates the product from its competitors, or a unique insight about the product or consumer which differentiates the product from the marketing place and fulfils a person's needs.

If it does this in such a creative way that people can't help put pass it to their friends, then it's working really, really well.

If people are passing it to their friends because they think it's funny (like a gorilla banging a drum) and it doesn't do anything to sell the product then it isn't advertising - it is just sponsored content. I would argue that Cadbury's glass and a half full products are exactly this. That's probably why they've been losing market share to Galaxy.

Bah Richard. You're making me think again.

This makes so much intuitive sense. It'll be fascinating to see the research results.

It's a really interesting point, but I wonder if the exact opposite is true? After all, isn't some of the debate about advertising to children that they lack the ability to distinguish between programming content and advertising, and are thus overly susceptible to its influence? And that advertorials in print are clearly labelled such to protect readers from the belief that they're reading editorial, not a commercial message?

Or that we insist that brands trying to engage with online forums identify themselves, lest we listen to what they say without our finely developed filter for commercial hype?

Not only do you steal my idea (actually mine and my colleague Andrew Stirk's). But you don't even have the good grace to link to my blog.

You've changed.

I don't know if get your argument right, but are you implying, that people will only process information in any way relevant to their decision making process, if their brain is in the appropriate mode (i.e. "Ah, this is advertising break and I now have to search for the messages")?

Has it not been demonstrated by R. Heath et al that if we are actually aware of the fact that somebody is trying to force a message into our head, this message will always be labeled with this little "don't believe, don't listen" sticker up there? Whereas when we experience content in in a deliberate and voluntary situation, our brain might process the information along with some positive emotions. Might it thus perhaps even have a far stronger influence on intuitive decision making, when we are not in a cautious state of mind like we are during an ad break?
Just a thought...

word!

i take your point brother but I think 'the audience' understands the implicit contract of advertising - anything from a brand is some kind exhortation, some kind of sell.

Are ads online just content? I think now. Some ads are, some ads are just ads

http://stickywood.blogspot.com/2009/02/when-is-ad-just-ad.html

I'll take a stand on this one-- you're wrong.

Cat and Dan have already made the point well enough.

Connection is King.
A true test isn't Views, a true test of the value of online brand communications lies in whether people are prepared to link to it, to connect it to their friends via Twitter, Delicious et al.
Back in the days, you knew your brand was doing it, if people sported the label. Same goes today, if they're linking to it, its saying something to them and its become part of their story.

I totally agree on the value for the audience. Well, If I pass a link of T-Mobile Dance or Cadbury Eyebrows video to my friend, I'm a good person as I share a couple of minutes of great time. And it doesn't matter if it's ad or not.

What is a question here, is how many viral ads actually turn into sales? Yes, they create buzz and maybe that's enough, but what about likeliness to buy? Maybe you have some data? ;)

Hehehe. I see the spambots have no idea about context. Or perhaps they do?