So why do I keep hearing boasts about how such-and-such a campaign was “one of the most downloaded things on YouTube this year”?

Simple, I suggest: because too many social media mouthpieces get too excited about the outputs of their endeavours rather than the outcomes. While there does need to be some licence for simply trying things – because we don’t yet know what combination of digitising media will be most powerful in then future – if we get too carried away with volumes then we’ll miss the point about the potential of two-way digital media for public relations.

Yes a funny or outrageous video on YouTube may get millions of downloads. Because YouTube is on the internet, as are millions (make that billions) of people. What a shock.

But just like those fat piles of potentially meaningless press clippings, all the downloads in the world will not help you if none of those viewers want to buy your product or service. Or, worse, they’re just laughing at you.

Of course there have been video-based campaigns that have had fantastic success. My point is not that video is bad – quite the contrary. More PRs should be thinking about how they can use the moving image to embolden their clients’ messages.

The point is that if we start foaming at the mouth about volume of downloads without bringing some clear financial outcomes into the evaluation mix, it’s not going to help the PR business modernise or PR work to become better valued.

Mind you, ‘donkey farting opening bars of Ukranian national anthem is YouTube sensation’ doesn’t seem to have much of a commercial ring about it does it?

The problem with terrestrial TV networks running stories about YouTube hits is that while it recognises the huge popularity of social media sites, it also underscores the reach, scope and immediacy of these mediums compared to television.

The question is how PRs should approach the phenomenon (well it’s not really a phenomenon, but I’m trying to make a point here and words are weapons..) of YouTube cult clips getting into the mainstream media because they attract a lot of hits. Sure, PRs have developed smart (typically funny) video content that finds its way onto the telly through this route, and some brands have used it as a reposte.

Should the TV exposure really just be cream on top given the YouTube audience reach, or is TV the ultimate aim?

It probably depends on the case, but a win-win for PR. Rather than two publishers not wanting to run the same story for competitive reasons, they both run the content because one can’t afford to ignore the other.

No need for the PR trade to feel sheepish about exploiting this either.Baa-Studs Present…