Absolutely Doug. I think that may be one of the issues with what the current definition of ‘viral’ is… if it is a transparent campaign, unlike the recent HP “Fingerskilz” campaign, it would on the surface appear natural to include some raison d’etre within the execution. But I agree that one size does not fit all.

…the collective intelligence of viral viewers far exceeds that of the people that create them. So creators of faux UCG content beware.

Exactly. I’m waiting to see if there will be a large backlash against HP for misleading users as to who/ what was creating the videos. Should be interesting to watch the reaction.

Part of the problem with making viral executions with clear calls to action is that it can often cripple the viral spread. Sometimes a CTA can be “baked in” appropriately and some times it can’t.
The reason for this is that viral is all about what the audience wants to see/hear, and not what the marketer wants to tell them. This necessitates less focus on the message (or at least much more subtlety in expose it).

Good viral creation also has to take into account that the collective intelligence of viral viewers far exceeds that of the people that create them. So creators of faux UCG content beware.

Yes, it’s the ear ;)

Great photo too. Is that the elephant’s ear or another part of it’s body?