Results

The web has always been a ripe landscape for games and toys. Not only are traditional computer games introducing web versions where players can compete with friends, but online games are also adding social elements where people can meet and play against one another. Increasingly, these games are aimed at a demographic not usually represented in web advertising: kids. The ten-and-under set is a ripe market for advertisers hawking anything from the latest action figure or doll to snack foods, and they are perfectly able to influence the purse strings of their parents. Now, advertisers are luring younger kids online to play games and absorb marketing messages.

I was surprised to see my three year-old niece expertly navigate to PBSkids.org to play a game featuring Curious George. The site includes audio as you roll over buttons to help children who cannot yet read to navigate the site. While the games are educational in keeping with PBS’s mission, they all star characters from hit children’s shows, like Clifford the Big Red Dog, Dragon Tales, and Sesame Street. Kids are no strangers to these brands, and they will remember the awesome Caillou game they play when their birthdays roll around. PBS also has a similar site called PBSkidsplay.org, which requires a subscription of $10 a month.

Another site that caters to children is AddictingGames.com, which is owned and operated by Viacom, parent company to Nickelodeon and MTV. This site mixes clever Flash-based games with online advertising. Players are invited to play and rate games from sponsors like Acuvue and Neopets. As a recent New York Times article puts it, “Clicking through and hopping from site to site will give a child a crash course in the latest Bratz movies or Hannah Montana concert.” The site also features plenty of games for older children and adults, giving it a wider appeal.

On a recent visit, my eleven year-old relative would wake up in the early morning hours and head straight for my laptop. His destination was Line Rider, an addictive online game that challenges players to create line drawings for a virtual sledder to follow like the peaks and valleys of a real hill. The game has some of the lessons of elementary physics, but it’s really just about creating an entertaining and nearly impossible sledding hill. Unlike PBSkids or AddictingGames, Line Rider is not associated with a major TV channel or toy company, but it is quickly building a brand that transcends age groups. By the end of the week-long visit, the eleven year-old wasn’t the only one spending hours creating and saving tracks online.

While all of the above mentioned games are free (or boast free versions), still other sites catering to children have some free content and some that requires a parent’s credit card. The granddaddy of these types of sites is Webkinz, which pairs a retail item (the plush toy comes with a code for the website) with online content. The “pets” are both virtual and physical, and kids can go online to take care of their toys. Webkinz also incorporates a social networking function where children can visit friends’ pets and even chat, though parents can control their level of access. The site gives new areas for each different pet, and kids are urged to collect them all. As the New York Times reports, “Some parents have been known to load up on dozens of Webkinz at $14 each.”

While it may be tempting to park kids in front of the computer, even on child-oriented sites they are inundated with advertising and marketing messages. As the Webkinz generation ages, they will not only have an extraordinary level of web literacy, but they will also accept the presence of sponsored content and subscription sites in a way that older web users do not. With the integration of television shows, toys, and the web, we’re bound to see more and more online advertising aimed at the Barney set.

RSS feeds are becoming more and more popular, and businesses and individuals alike are using them to communicate with customers, vendors, journalists, friends, and family. Some industry watchers are predicting that RSS has the potential to replace email, and marketers are taking note of their popularity and power. In their current form, feeds are not personalized enough to eclipse email as a communication method, but with the right tweaking and features, they could be a powerful new tool for both businesses and casual users.

RSS, which stands for “Really Simple Syndication”, “Rich Site Summary”, or “RDF Site Summary” depending on who you ask, is essentially a self-updating content subscription. They are based on blogging tools that authors can use to post new stories, updates, and information. Avid readers can add a simple application (sometimes on the desktop, sometimes in the browser) which lists new content and keeps them up to date. RSS feeds are very commonly used on blogs, news websites, and podcasts. They are usually denoted by a small orange icon featuring a “sound wave” graphic.

Marketing groups are starting to use RSS technology also as an alternative to mass emails that serve to annoy and inconvenience even the most dedicated of customers. At this point, sources estimate that just 20% of internet users employ RSS feeds on a regular basis, but these numbers are expected to increase as the technology becomes more familiar. While it may not have as wide a reach for personal notes and messages, RSS has definite potential to change the way businesses communicate with customers. As a recent SiteProNews article suggests, “In the same way email eclipsed snail mail for content delivery, RSS will eclipse email as the consumer’s choice for opt-in messaging.”

One of the reasons RSS is so promising is that it actually reaches people who care. Even if you sign up for an email newsletter or HTML-based special offers flyer, the likelihood of it actually reaching your inbox shockingly 60% or less. RSS, on the other hand, does away with spam filters and allows users to check updates at their own convenience, ensuring that 100% of subscribers will get the message.

Another reason why marketers are turning to RSS is due to the rise of internet video. With sites like YouTube and Hulu topping the traffic charts, advertisers are turning to video as a way of grabbing users’ attention. Email, however, is a very complicated way to deliver a video message; even HTML emails are not a sure bet depending on subscribers’ clients and settings. Videos get stripped by email providers, and there’s no guarantee they’ll play within the message consistently, which is how users will expect it to work. RSS, however, was built to easily embed video and audio, just like a blog, and users don’t have inconsistent access to the message.

As RSS gains more users, businesses are seeing a unique opportunity to target their marketing efforts at their best customers. RSS provides a pain-free, consistent way to reach users who actually want to hear from them. It eliminates many of the inconsistencies and headaches of email marketing efforts, while still providing the wide reach that email creates. The potential upsides are enormous, and as the technology improves to allow for private messages and personalized content, RSS could well become the method of choice for online communication.

Online advertising has always been a risky business. Ad buyers rely on imperfect data, fluctuating prices, and visitor counts to determine when and where to place their ads. Top web measurement firm comScore has recently suffered from a drop in their stock prices as data they collected differed greatly from that released by Google. As a recent Wall Street Journal article reports, “It was another reminder that the science of tracking Internet usage is still far from perfect.”

The controversy began over paid click data released by comScore and by Google. In their quarterly earnings report, Google asserted that clicks on its advertisements had increased by 20% from the same quarter in 2007. As a Google press release explains, “Aggregate paid clicks, which include clicks related to ads served on Google sites and the sites of our AdSense partners, increased approximately 20% over the first quarter of 2007 and approximately 4% over the fourth quarter of 2007.” ComScore, on the other hand, had already estimated 1.8% growth in Google’s paid clicks. That’s way too large a discrepancy to be within a margin of error, and comScore stockholders let their flagging confidence show. The firm’s stock dropped 8% and shares closed down 40 cents at $23.18.

The key to the different numbers is all in the fine print. Google’s earnings report extends to global websites and were overall figures for all partner sites. ComScore measured only U.S. clicks and did not include non-search ads. A prominently displayed press release on comScore’s website accounts for the seeming error. Bold face type explains, “The main difference between the paid clicks trends reported by Google and comScore can be traced to the fact that the comScore paid click data cited in financial analysts’ reports (and subsequently reported by the media) are U.S. data only.” The treatise also warns, “Analysts’ efforts to use comScore’s domestic data to estimate Google’s global trends were misguided…It also needs to be noted that comScore does not currently provide a measurement of global paid click data and has never claimed that its U.S. data can be used to “predict” global trends.”

O.K., so it was simply a matter of comparing apples to oranges. Why the stock scare? Why the outrage? Advertisers, as implied in the press release, use the data released by measurement firms like comScore and Nielsen to find the most advantageous spots for their ads. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Advertisers study their [comScore’s and Nielsen’s] data - including a Web site’s total visitors or page views and time spend on the site - to try to determine which sites are popular among particular demographic groups or in certain topic areas, such as news or sports.” If advertisers see comScore’s numbers and make decisions based on those, they’re barking up the wrong tree. They must delve deeper into demographic data to find real value on the numbers. However, comScore clearly deflects responsibility back to their users, who should not rely on their data for financial reporting or decision-making.

All of this has created quite a controversy in the web measurement world, and it has industry experts and marketers alike wondering exactly how to track internet data. It’s tempting to lean towards Nielsen or comScore data as a barometer for economic growth or financial status, but it is really most useful for media and consumer research. As comScore’s press release warns, “we should all be mindful that the primary uses of comScore’s data are for marketing and media analysis purposes.”

AOL has been struggling to update their various web sites since changing their revenue strategy last year. In an effort to attract more advertisers, they have made major changes to a number of their vertical sites, including Money & Finance, News, Sports, Health, Food, Music, Games, and Moviefone. The redesign has been paying off in terms of traffic, but will visits turn into advertising?

In the past year, AOL’s visits grew by 15% to 56.6 million uniques, much more successful than the first quarter of 2007. A recent AOL press release attributes the elevated visits directly to the new sites. “Our strong growth is a direct result of rebuilding each and every one of our vertical web sites over the past 12 months with the goal of providing consumers highly relevant and rich experiences that focus on key passion points which in turn provide tremendous value to our advertising partners,” Executive Vice President Bill Wilson said. Some of the sites are even on the top of industry for their categories.

In addition to content reprogramming on AOL-branded sites, the company has launched new websites which do not use the AOL name. A blog-style news site called Switched focuses on technology, with entertaining stories like “Six Ways to Break Up Over Your Computer or Cell Phone” and “Geek’s Girlfriend Finds Linux Harder to Use Than Windows” appealing to hip, young techies. Another site reaches out to hip hop fans specifically, but has content appealing to African-American audiences in general. BlackVoices allows users to create personal profiles, browse news and entertainment stories, and connect with others who share their interests. The site was purposefully distanced from the AOL name because, as Wilson told the Wall Street Journal, “”If I call a hip-hop site AOL Hip Hop that just won’t resonate with consumers.”

AOL has also worked toward search engine optimization to attract advertisers and draw visitors. With the strength of their first quarter numbers, AOL’s web advertising unit Platform-A announced an auction-style market for online display and video ads. Ad firms who want exposure on AOL’s sites will be able to big on available space both on AOL-branded sites and on other networks connected to Platform-A.

The strategy may pay off for AOL, as web advertising is gaining popularity and becoming more diverse. Many marketers are turning to the web as a sort of “pre-game” for television or print advertising, and they’re using the vast internet landscape to gather data and conduct consumer surveys before launching products in mainstream markets. AOL’s sites are well positioned to take advantage of this trend. They act as portal sites to shuffle users from an interesting news story to a slideshow to a funny video, etc. It’s easy to get pleasantly lost in one of AOL’s many sites, and they’re betting that advertisers will help grow their audience and their revenue.

DVRs are a dreaded technology for TV advertisers. After all, they’re designed to allow viewers to skip commercials, and presumably the messages and products they sell are not reaching those who record their favorite programs on a DVR. However, a recent study conducted by Innerscope Research (and paid for by NBC) suggests that some TV spots are memorable to DVR owners, even in fast forward. The study may lead some advertisers to create ads with familiar characters and longer-than-average cuts to keep their products in the spotlight while ads are being skipped.

The study was conducted last August, and 24 different ads were tested. Those which were most memorable to DVR viewers included a trailer for the The Bourne Ultimatum with Matt Damon and a cough medicine ad for Mucinex featuring their popular (and repulsive, in my view) character Mr. Mucus. As the Wall Street Journal wryly asks, “What do Matt Damon and an animated piece of phlegm have in common? Viewers seem to remember them especially well…”. Innerscope uses biometric signals to determine the memorability of ads, including eye movements, perspiration, and heart rate. They found that ads with familiar characters, large brand logos, and fewer scene changes (with action concentrated in the middle of the screen) were the most likely to be remembered during fast forward.

The Wall Street Journal speculates that perhaps the reason for the absorption is due to the need for fast forwarders to actually look at the screen during commercial breaks: “viewers speeding through ads are often paying more attention to the screen than live TV viewers, who listen for clues to turn back to the TV program.” For this reason, advertisers who want to reach DVR viewers are attempting to make ads that rely not on clever audio or flashy scene cuts, but on center-screen action and logo visibility.

Visa has reportedly created an ad specifically meant to reach DVR fast forwarders. They concentrated on the tagline, “Life Takes Visa,” displaying it for a few seconds longer than usual so it could still be read and absorbed in fast forward. This doesn’t mean that all advertisers are buying Innerscope’s results, however. Ad firms pay for how many viewers see the spots, and they do not count DVR viewers among their audiences. As Jason Maltby, president and co-executive director for national broadcast at MindShare told the New York Times, “Would we pay when they’re fast-forwarding? No.”

While Innerscope’s “neuromarketing” research is fascinating, it doesn’t suggest by any means that ads are still a slam dunk for DVR viewers. While 69% of real-time viewers remembered commercials the following day, only 25% of fast forwarders could say the same. Still, it’s a surprisingly high number, and advertisers may begin to incorporate some DRV viewers into their marketing efforts. One can only that doesn’t mean more stomach-turning characters like the memorable Mr. Mucus.

Online video continues to rise in popularity, and advertisers are still scratching their heads about how to make money from the YouTube phenomenon. According to a recent press release from Comscore, “More than three-quarters of the total U.S. Internet audience (75.7 percent) viewed online video [in January].” And that’s only U.S. internet users. Despite this growing trend, online advertising giant Google has yet to make money on web video ventures, despite owning the largest and most popular site, YouTube.

One reason advertisers haven’t jumped at the online video market may be the nature of user-generated content. They’re afraid their message might be associated with unflattering videos. As a recent article in the Globe and Mail explains, “Many advertisers, for now, are staying away for fear their ads could inadvertently appear with clips that have nudity, foul language or perhaps criticism of their brand.” After spending $1.76 billion dollars to acquire YouTube, though, Google is determined to soothe these fears.

One new strategy is to place advertising in the form of banners or clickable text within a larger video. This will allows advertisers to partner with appropriate videos for their products. For example, a banner for iTunes might be placed on a video for the latest band to hit it big in the viral world. The service also allows advertisers to target ads based on a number of criteria. Their ads can be direct by demographic factors like age, gender, geographic location, or even time of day, eliminating the risk of placement solely based on content.

The other strategy which Google is pushing is for clickable video ads to appear on sites that are a part of their content network and as a sideline on Google search pages. The ads will play with a click, not automatically upon navigating to a page. A good example of this can be seen with this Adobe ad featured on AppleInsider. This also allows clear, directed targeting to eliminate some of the guess work in online video advertising. For example, a Google user who searches for “flower arranging” might be greeted not only with websites on the topic, but also with a 1-800-FLOWERS video about their latest promotion.

In addition to the promise of targeted ads, Google is trying to lure advertisers with the promise of measuring user interest, something which traditional advertising venues cannot provide. As their AdWords page on clickable video ads explains, “We’ll report a clickthrough whenever a user clicks the display URL and visits the advertiser’s site, rather than when a user clicks the play button or image.” This is a more accurate count of interest in a product, as it can measure how many users take action, not just how many users view the video. The pricing for AdWords video is also prorated based on clicks, making it more accessible to companies of all sizes.

While these new services do not guarantee that online videos will start making money for Google, they do pose a significant threat to television and print advertising. It is much cheaper to advertise online than on a television broadcast, and the ROI of any given campaign can be measured immediately and accurately. These benefits could lure companies away from traditional advertising venues to take advantage of the popularity, low cost, and targeted nature of online video. If Google’s plans are successful, we’ll be seeing a marriage between sponsored and user-generated content on our favorite web video sites.

Many industry experts, journalists, and bloggers have expressed their displeasure with Microsoft’s possible takeover of Yahoo!. Though the executives at Yahoo! have so far rejected the $41.7 billion offer, many expect a deal will be reached at a higher price, much to the dismay of the lion’s share of writers on the subject. As Jerry Yang, Yahoo!’s CEO, fends off the strong arm tactics of Steve Ballmer at Microsoft, we find ourselves rooting for him without knowing exactly why. Is it because we like the underdog? Or just because we hate Microsoft? Is there anything positive that could come out of this deal for consumers?

Yahoo! has been spiraling downward for quite awhile, and they haven’t been able to compete with search engine giant Google. Google has inked deal after deal with rival companies, perhaps the most important being the acquisition of DoubleClick, an internet advertising broker, which gives Google even more control over how ads reach internet users. The DoubleClick deal was cleared by the FCC after months of hearings, but is still awaiting approval by European courts. Yahoo! has lost ground to Google consistently when it comes to search technology and advertising, though Microsoft’s offer clearly intends to buck this trend.

Almost every news source covering the deal mentions that Microsoft wants a piece of the internet advertising industry. Perhaps together Yahoo! and Microsoft can present a viable alternative to Google for both search users and advertisers. The key to developing solid, targeted ad technology is collecting user behavior data, which is one thing at which Yahoo! has always excelled. As the Seattle Times reports, “Yahoo assembles a profile of a person’s behavior based on searches within Yahoo, videos watched, ads clicked and visits to Yahoo sites and partner sites such as eBay. The profile that emerges could have details such as a person’s basic salary, health concerns, cars, number of children, gender, age, ZIP code, industry and work.” Yahoo! is able to collect these detailed profiles in a way that Microsoft is not, and the information could lead to a vast improvement in Microsoft’s presence and success online.

Aside from the expected boost in Microsoft’s online ad chops, industry experts are speculating about the company’s possible plans to expand online software efforts. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, “the company’s products face pressure to evolve as the rise of online services changes how people use technology.” Microsoft is being outmatched by the Software As A Service (SAAS) industry right now, and they rely almost exclusively on traditional software licensing for their revenue. Their competition comes from SAAS vendors who provide value to business users by hosting applications on proprietary servers, freeing businesses from expensive data centers and draconian licensing fees.

The Yahoo! deal could help Microsoft transition into the online software arena. As British insurance company Aviva PLC told the Wall Street Journal, “[the company] hopes Microsoft will combine Yahoo’s online software and knowledge of how the Internet works with Microsoft’s understanding of how a business operates to develop innovative corporate software.” If the deal goes through, Microsoft should be making plans to harness not only Yahoo!’s potential for ad revenue but also their expertise in web applications.

This dual strategy would push them towards the ultimate goal of competing with Google, which has an early lead in providing office tools through web applications. Google Apps, which includes word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation programs is becoming more and more popular with businesses of all sizes. Microsoft has made some moves to allow online access to its Office Suite, and perhaps with help from Yahoo!’s experts they will bring their software to the next generation of delivery.

Speculation is still all over the board, and it will likely be quite awhile until a deal is reached. One has to wonder, due to the recent fine imposed by the EU against Microsoft for a record $1.4 billion, if a merger of the two will be approved by government anti-trust groups. While I definitely sympathize with the folks at Yahoo! and hope against hope that they will be able to fight off the acquisition, there just might be some benefits for users in the long run. Most of us are stuck with Microsoft our software provider whether we like it or not, and a deal with Yahoo! just may give them the innovative approach they need to please us.

For those of you who remember being awestruck while watching the classic children’s movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, get ready for this: lickable wallpaper has entered into the modern marketplace! Earlier this month, Welch’s took out a full-page print ad in People magazine to promote their brand of grape juice. But there was a new twist: the ads provided lickable samples, using technology developed by a company called First Flavor. The ad was met with mixed reactions, most of which pertaining to what this Wall Street Journal article has dubbed “The Ick Factor.” The internet buzz generated by this new concept suggests that some may have been turned off to the product based on their initial interpretation of having to actually lick a magazine (and who knows where it has been?). However, the truth is that these lickable ads use the same technology as the dissolvable breath freshening strips that have been on the market for a while now. Even still, there are those who are not entirely convinced that this will be a sanitary form of marketing. After all, what’s to stop someone from tampering with a pile of magazines?

While this is not the first instance of this type of advertisement being used (The Wall Street Journal sites a similar ad campaign being used by CBS to promote one of its sitcoms), the Welch’s ad has received a lot of attention. Radio host Shari Elliker and her crew at WBAL AM 1090 even did a test run of the ad for a segment on her morning show. This attention has lead some ad experts to believe that such multi-sensory advertisements will draw a new pool of customers and strengthen the connection with existing ones. All publicity is good publicity, right? However, these experts also warn that there may be no middle ground with this type of advertising. Lickable ads will either be massively popular or a complete flop based on the response to their flavor.

Still, there are many consumers who can’t get past the perceived “ick factor,” and there are many more who believe that even if they could, there are too many opportunities for tampering and endangering public health. One blogger reviewing the Welch’s grape juice ad wonders if this whole concept is “a lawsuit waiting to happen.” Additional feedback indicates that some consumers feel the big bucks the company is spending on these ads (which, in fact, costs hundreds of thousands more than a normal print ad) would be better spent on other marketing ideas (i.e. - free samples of actual grape juice, discount coupons, etc.). And while there were a few blog reviews that were positively endorsing this ad, the overwhelming majority of them listed reason after reason for why this was such a bad idea.

Behind us are the days of the simple scratch-and-sniff ad, but whether or not this new marketing scheme will be effective has yet to be seen. There certainly seem to be many concerns in the consumer pool that will need to be addressed. One thing’s for sure: this ad got people taking about Welch’s, so it’s clear that their marketing team must be doing something right!

Traditional market research is seeing another shake up with the inclusion of social networking into their mix of techniques. While we’re all accustomed to seeing advertising on Facebook (everything from “That’s what she said” t-shirts to floral gift baskets are being hawked on their ad board), a new strategy has been popping up in the marketing departments of major companies. Now, not only will you see ads for your favorite products, but you will be asked to discuss them in social networking forums.

The process of tweaking and improving products is being taken out of the hands of R & D departments and being thrust upon the consumer. In an increasingly user-generated world, everyday consumers are being asked for their feedback on everything from doggie treats to tax software, all through the lens of online networks. Not only is this a cost-effective way to conduct high-level focus groups, but people sitting in front of a computer are more likely to be brutally honest than those sitting in a stuffy conference room. Some companies are using the standard sites like MySpace and Facebook, while others are creating their own social networks. Some are made up of selected consumers or internal employees, while others are open to a larger market set.

A good example of this is Proctor & Gamble’s networking site Capessa, which is open to any internet user. It focuses on what are believed to be “women’s issues” like health, beauty, parenting, relationships, and gardening. As the website explains, “Capessa is a gathering place for real women to share their stories, offer their personal wisdom and practical advice, improve their lives and be inspired. It’s a place where experiences are the common thread, where advice comes from personal experiences. Capessa is you and women just like you.” Not terribly subtle, is it? What is subtle is Proctor & Gamble’s involvement, which is mentioned hardly anywhere on the site. Users can post blogs and videos, recommend links, and chat about their favorite shoes and makeup, while P & G collects their opinions and ideas for future product development.

Another example of this is model is Turbo Tax’s Inner Circle, which is a social network open to any taxpayer, whether or not they use the software. The site boasts a membership of about 5,000 users, and they can ask questions and post comments about taxes and the software packages offered by Turbo Tax. Their marketing department monitors the questions and concerns and even stokes the conversations to gather data. What differentiates this from Capessa is the open acknowledgment that user comments and ideas will be used for future product cycles. The website urges users to, “Tell us how we can improve our products and services. Contribute ideas for new features.”

In addition to individual companies who have created online forums for focus group research, there are a few pioneering technology firms developing social networks as a business service. Mzinga, which translates as “Beehive” from Swahili, allows companies to integrate social networking tools into their existing website. These add-ons can include blog-style forums, wikis, consumer surveys, polls, user profile pages, and social bookmarking. Another front-runner in this trend is Networked Insights, has the added feature of rating customer comments and activity based on the responses they receive. For example, an active commenter who does not spark debate or attract other comments would be less important for market research than a one-time commenter who set off a firestorm discussion. This allows marketing departments to screen ideas based on their validity and popularity.

Companies who engage in focus groups based in online networks are reaching out to users in a low-cost, high-yield way. Clever marketers could potentially get free advice from people who actually care about the outcome of the product. One word of caution, however: be prepared to actually use their suggestions. There’s nothing quite as puzzling to consumers as ignoring their opinions. Making a product based on user-generated data not only has the power to appeal on a massive scale, but it also has a built-in consumer and the buzz of word-of-mouth advertising. It’s the recipe for a perfect storm, and I suspect that more and more corporate websites will be asking me to create a personal profile in the near future.

Professional athletes have always been big business for advertisers, but recent trends show that the pros are taking the lead when it comes to low-budget, online ads. Instead of allowing big-budget companies like Nike and Gatorade to create their images, athletes are reaching out to fans with Web 2.0 technology. Many have Facebook and MySpace profiles, contribute videos to YouTube, and write regular blogs. This grassroots marketing effort shows that celebrity athletes are stepping up to the plate to showcase their personalities, and it has helped them establish public identities outside of traditional sponsorships.

Perhaps no athlete has done a better job of web self-promotion than Chris Bosh, the charismatic forward for the Toronto Raptors. This rising star in the NBA is card-carrying member of the Web 2.0 generation. In addition to being the fourth draft pick in 2003 and taking the Raptors to their first ever division title, Bosh has his own YouTube channel, the only athlete to claim this “honor”. Bosh got the channel following the success of his hit YouTube video, in which he asks fans to vote for his inclusion on the NBA All Star team. Dressed in a cowboy hat and a bolo tie (Bosh is a native Texan), he stumps using the classic language of a used car salesman: “You think it’s $20? No sir. You think it’s $10? No ma’am. Even five? Uh huh! It is free! That is right, it is free!” In case you’re wondering, “Bubba” is played by Bosh’s brother.

Bosh’s hilarious self-promotion was a success, and he will be playing in the All Star game on February 17th. Fans on YouTube have commented that his sense of humor won their votes. As one commentator wrote, “NBA should be THRILLED to have this guy! Young superstar coming into his prime. Tech savy for the internet.” The video has received nearly 500,000 views, all for a production cost of approximately $20. As Bosh told the Wall Street Journal, $15 of that was for the cowboy hat. On his official blog, Bosh expresses his interest in continuing his YouTube success: “I think I’ve found a way for me to show people how I like to have fun. I have a few ideas for new videos so I want everyone to be on the lookout.”

Another NBA star has also taken his branding into his own hands. Steve Nash, an All Star who plays guard with the Phoenix Suns, enlisted amateur filmmaker Lola Schnabel to put together a web ad for Nike. The unusual part of this is that Nike had no creative control or financial stake in the beautifully shot and expertly edited ad. It features Nash’s other athletic talents like soccer and skateboarding, and he felt it could better reflect his personality than a big budget masterpiece produced by Nike. While Nash isn’t quite as wired as Bosh, the two NBA and YouTube stars may represent the future of how professional athletes interact with fans and advertisers.

The biggest surprise in this new trend is that advertisers have not objected to these independent ads. While Nike has not specifically promoted Nash’s spot, a spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal, “If an athlete remains true to him or herself and respectful to others and the brand, then it is hard to envision a conflict.” Nike’s position acknowledges that athletes are essentially brands or commodities, and as long as their self-promotion efforts align with those of their corporate sponsors, the benefits are universal. As more and more tech-savvy sports stars emerge in the professional leagues, we can look forward to an increase in viral, web marketing efforts by athletes, and for athletes.