Judson Laipply (Evolution of Dance) Promotes Crank Movie
Note to Huffington Post readers: Judson Laipply is the guy that did the “Evolution of Dance” video that remains one of YouTube’s most popular videos (nearing 40 million views). Had he been paid even a fraction of a penny for each view, he’d be able to retire from that video. Thankfully as of Jan.27, 2007 YouTube has plans to pay content creators a portion of ad dollars. They finally took my advice from last July. 🙂
Not sure it will be as generous of a portion as Revver, blip.tv and Metacafe, but the sheer volume of YouTube means this could be a big day for creators like me… the viral video genius
If you’re interested in online video (creators, viewers, advertisers), please stick around WillVideoForFood.com.
Now onto the regular post (from last August):
This one’s done well. It’s the second video Judson Laipply posted (his first is an all-time most popular on YouTube). Judson and Pedro (from Napolean Dynamite) dance.
This one’s a subtle promotion for Crank. It avoids, for the most part, all of the 7 Deadly Sins of Viral Video Advertising. Here’s why I liked it:
- The title isn’t about Crank- it’s about dancing and borrows on the Laipply fame and Napolean Dynamite
- The video is irreverant- shows them dancing together and assures us they aren’t gay
- The editing and camera work is virally sloppy
- The movie is not the central point- but gets mention early, frequently and with a “call to action”
- The best humor comes from Laipply’s self-depricating false ego (and wonderfully awkward moment where they both stop smiling)
- It was posted by Laipply not by the promotion team for Crank
I hope Laipply was well compensated for sharing his fame with Crank.
Have to totally disagree with you here other than Laipply hopefully being well compensated for this.
– The whole thing feels staged rather than authentic in anyway.
– It does smell like a promo for Crank to me.
– The dancing is a huge yawn factor.
– There was a charming honesty in Laipply’s last video (that old it’s funny cause it is true) and I see none of that here.
– The ‘not gay’ reference was in poor taste. Beyond the fact that it doesn’t matter, I think the viewer is already well aware that they are playing it up.
– I wouldn’t say it is ‘borrowing’ fame from both, but ‘using’ fame
I didn’t see it the same way, but I think all of your points are all valid.
junk