Both I and all readers are entitled to comment how they will, but I expect that provocative comments from either side will be met by similar thoughts from the other.

The King Tut post got under my skin, because he was making comments about me personally and my character traits and I reacted emotionally – I do that sometimes. I felt he was not qualified to make those judgments.

I can’t say that I enjoy being taken to task, but I learn from it and that is good thing. I make no apologies for my post above. I am calling out Dan because by my judgment what he is doing is unethical, he and others like yourself are entitled to point out my hypocrisies. I don’t claim to know everything about everything, but I believe that the purpose of blogging is to air points of view.

Don’t like what I have to say or my tone? Then do what Sami does above and call me out, or post yourself or decide not to read this blog. I am interested in the conversation and don’t feel that what I write is the first or last word on anything, just my POV.

In this very post you’ve called out Dan with your own judgement. Why should your readers be not allowed to do the same?

Further to this I wonder what you’d think if we starting linking to your blog with quotes like the arab remark on your recent attack on the major airline corp.

Comotion is basically in the business of duping a large yet uninterested audience into watching videos that apparently have little to do with their clients’ brands (in Comotion’s own words, “Generally, a concept should not be forced because it fits a brand. Rather, a brand should be fit into a great concept”). huh? Why not just launch a Youtube in-video advertising campaign and save yourself some production bucks?

If a traditional media buying co. or ad agency suggested this type of untargeted shotgun strategy they’d be asked off the account in about a half second.

Who cares if Comotion can generate a large audience? How many viewers actually matched the client’s target demo? How many were turned off the brand once they realised they’d been duped? And how many were left simply shaking their heads wondering what the hell that was all about?

Greenberg’s a TA at Stanford studying management science & engineering… in other words, marketing strategies are probably not his strength but like a good engineer he’s found a hack to scam the system.

Always a pleasure to hear from someone I have never met, who hasn’t taken the time to get to know me, yet still feels qualified to make sweeping and incorrect generalizations.

Nahh, you are naive.

And don’t know what’s going on.

Did you stick your head in the sand about all the info on how the MySpace hype was generated? Or did you come to the Internet after MySpace was created?

Kinda big red flashing lights with that one…don’tcha think?

I was also quite worried that a fair number of commenters on the site seemed to think the practices were ok (although how many of those were from Dan’s own company, we’ll never know). This is the sort of thing that gives marketers and PR professionals a bad name.

@Leigh – Google’s cache is a wonderful thing.

Funny that…..

Seth Godin wrote a bit about the difference between viral marketing and word of mouth:

“Word of mouth is a decaying function. A marketer does something and a consumer tells five or ten friends. And that’s it. It amplifies the marketing action and then fades, usually quickly.

Viral marketing is a compounding function. A marketer does something and then a consumer tells five or ten people. Then then they tell five or ten people. And it repeats. And grows and grows. Like a virus spreading through a population. The marketer doesn’t have to actually do anything else.”

According to this definition, is what DAG doing viral marketing or WOM? My guess is that this is mostly a decaying function.