YouTube needs media relations advisor ?

The man with the coolest name in the blogosphere, Vint Cerf, reckons that YouTube’s bad press (or PR disasters) are part caused by traditional media coverage, which encourages baddies to abuse YouTube…hmmmmm? Isn’t part of YouTube’s brand appeal that it established itself by accommodating the kind of risque, uncensored content that fuelled its popularity, yet which it now seeks to distance itself from? Not sure you can have it both ways Vint and certainly not a productive media relations strategy to blame the media for your current ills, when they’ve been so helpful to YouTube’s profile building (there wasn’t an advertising budget was there?). A bit like Britney shaving her head then blaming the media for showing pics of it, surely? Cerf’s comments appeared in yesterday’s IT section of The Australian.

3 thoughts on “YouTube needs media relations advisor ?

  1. Mate, couldn’t agree more.

    YouTube is the pinnacle of consumer generated online content. The day that censorship or the “fear of bad PR” causes it to be run more stringently is the day that YouTube becomes instantaneously irrelevant.


  2. Although I respect your opinion (and looking forward to hearing you at PRINZ) – I think you have confused old media ideas of branding with new media ones. Comparing an entertainer’s brand such Britney Spears with a social media site like YouTube’s is nonsense (and, dare I say it, bordering on ignorant of the principles and structure of online branding).

    Having not read the article that Vint is quoted from I won’t comment on his assertion.

    However, I will say that, like google before it, the success of YouTube has been a result of consistently serving up “positive user experience” – and being social media that experience is one of both producer/pirate and consumer of content.

    My guess is though, the Australian will open up to user content well before YouTube will ever print content in a newspaper.


  3. ‘Nonsense/ignorant’ suggests you’re somewhat confused
    about the point I was making Sam.
    Cerf was part blaming the media for the YouTube brand’s image issues. My ‘old media’ idea of branding still applies to ‘new media’ environments; ie that a brand is shaped by the way it behaves and how that behaviour impacts stakeholders. For YouTube, that behaviour is the aggregate of its often dubious content and its stakeholder relations strategies- for Britney her behaviour draws the attention of a key stakeholder, the media; gettit? And
    when you talk of ‘positive user experience’ does that factor in those who’ve been lampooned, slandered, ripped off or undone as a result of uncensored material posted on YT; neither the term ‘social media’ nor your defined role as a producer/pirate/consumer of content isn’t a ‘get out of jail free’ card. when it comes to commercial or critical judgement of even its most successful ‘brand’ behaviours.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s