[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk] According to Reuters, singing sensation Susan Boyle received over 103 million views on 20 different websites this week. I am amazed at how many viewers this single televised event could get. Compared to other single televised events:

• American Idol Season 1 Finale: ~50 million viewers
• First presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama: 52.4 million viewers
• Presidential debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan: 80.6 million viewers (Largest viewership for a presidential debate ever)

I see this phenomenon as a turning point for Internet video industry. It is estimated that the Internet's largest video network, YouTube, is making up to US$500 million in revenue for 2009. That's only about the same as Fox network's quarter with American Idol Season 3 airing and making up 35% of the sales. While the viewership numbers seem to match up, the pricing models are not even close. A YouTube Homepage Roadblock would cost you US$175,000 a day, but a 30 second slot on American Idol costs up to US$700,000. I believe the day will come when having content online makes more sense than having it broadcast on TV. Hulu appears to have got it right for now. I also believe that soon Internet video services will not just exist as websites but as content providers that push content directly to your living room.

Many of the companies I worked with and for in the past approached incentivised marketing (giving away prizes) for one purpose: sales leads. Gothere.sg, a Web 2.0 map startup in Singapore, is giving away an Apple iPhone 3G for... wait for it... noise. Yes marketeers, no call-to-action, no visiting the site, no registration, no send-to-a-friend gimmicks, no names, no emails, no leads! The young company, run by a bunch of 20-somethings, have opted for nothing more than you to mention "gothere.sg" on MSN, Google Talk, or Twitter. The first thing that comes to mind is, what's the ROI? The answer is: None. But think about this, their investment is merely a S$1,000 decive, and a little time to do up a nice page. What they get in return is brand equity, loyalty, and education which at this point is priceless for the startup. The site does not have any advertising, and they don't sell any products directly to customers, but they have one huge problem. Singaporeans for many years have trusted StreetDirectory.com for all their online mapping needs. Gothere.sg's success does not rely on how well they sell a product, but on becoming the new defacto map service in Singapore. They need to become a household name, the first place locals will head when they need to directions. The best part is they know their product blows the competition clear away. In my view, it even beats Google Maps on most occations. But why MSN, GTalk and Twitter? What's wrong with a viral email campaign? I personally appreciate this approach not just because I favour the social media, but because it's non-intrusive. While almost everyone I know has email, making it the "strongest" platform for any campaign; unsolicited email turns people off. Receiving unsolicited email is irritating to most and even hated by some. DM marketters know that the conversion rate for anything unsolicted is extremely low (less than 10%). This approach therefore creates about 90% of people hating you or finding you irriating. What Gothere.sg has done is totally passive which probably means they are informing the ignorant and creating fans, not pissing people off. Although there's not going to be immediate cash in their pockets, I applaud the folks at Gothere.sg for putting togethere a fantastic campaign. I'm sure if there's a true way of measuring brand equity and loyalty, they're already millionairs. Here's a quick snapshot of what the campaign has done on Twitter to date:

I've always been a very proud Twitter user. I kept away from following anyone that I didn't know well. I gave myself the excuse that I'd not be able to keep up with the info overload. I was actually being very foolish, approaching the very social Twitter with a very passive attitude. On top of the excuse, I was also naturally more interested in having more followers than people I follow. Today, for a reason unknown even to myself, I saw things differently. I realised that I was missing out on a lot. I care about most things tech, marketing, and of course the social media. But I was following less than 200 people on Twitter. It suddently occurred to me that there were probably thousands of experts and people like myself that I could learn a thing or two from. And all it took was a simple button click. So I started asking my existing Twitter followers for social media experts I could follow and also began checking out the Twitter tools that would help me figure out who's in the know. I came across WeFollow and began focusing on the Social Media tag. I was absolutely right. I have been living in the dark for the longest time and there's so many people to learn from and so much to know. I also came across Brad Howard's Twitter bio which was an affirmation that I was on the right path. Brad's bio reads: "Sure I'll follow you... you never know where a great idea will come from :)". Now that's the right attitude. I have also come to realise that my suspicions of info overload were untrue. Unlike email or RSS readers where every single message or post is vying for equal attention, Twitter is different. If there's anything meant for me, a @benkoe would be used to prioritse the tweet. So after 2 years of using Twitter, I'm learning to use it again. No more pride, no more suspisions, just get out there and make more friends pick up more ideas. Note: I'm not going to follow everyone I come across or who follows me because that's asking for trouble. But if you're as excited about tech, marketing, and the social media as I am, I'll definitely follow you back.