I never saw that famously viral “Lazy Sunday” bit from Saturday Night Live on an actual television. I saw it about a million times on YouTube or when friends emailed it to me. In a way, I cheated the system. I got the entertainment without having to endure any commercial or network promotion. Somewhere, a sponsor is weeping.

In the editor’s note of the April/May issue of Streaming Media magazine, Eric Schumacher-Rasmussen covers the ongoing debate about protecting intellectual property in the days of user-uploaded video sites like YouTube and Joost.

I’m down with the point he argues, but he cops out before tackling the biggest piece: monetization. He writes:

Heaven knows that the ability to catch clips from Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report only helped boost the overall market awareness of those Viacom properties. And “Lazy Sunday,” the Saturday Night Live clip that made YouTube a household name in late 2005, brought more publicity to that show than NBC could have ever dreamed of.

True points, both. Then he wraps up with:

But while up-and-coming filmmakers and musicians have seized the web as a means of promoting their art, er, intellectual property, so should the major entertainment players recognize that, like terrestrial radio, the web serves as a way for fans to find new favorites they’ll then invest in either directly with their wallets or indirectly by turning to the “official” as-supported sources.

I think he stumbles here:

1. There’s a huge difference between up-and-comers and major players. Up-and-comers need exposure, and lots of it, so they give away their content on purpose. It’s like handing out demo CDs. So that comparison is off base.

2. The issue with user-upload sites goes directly against Schumacher-Rasmussen’s suggestion. If the major players could control where their content went and how folks access it (like streaming a terrestrial radio station via a radio station website), then they wouldn’t be crying. Control of the content means you can get a viewer to either pay money or watch an ad, something that earns money. The way in which the major players make money may have to change, but they do still need to make money in order to continue making programs.

User-upload sites take away control of the content, and as a result take away the ability to make money, in either the advertising or pay-per-view models. You may be a big fan of free access to content, but I look at it by comparing programs on HBO to the cable access programs produced by high school kids. You pay for one, you don’t for the other.

At the end of the day, which would you prefer to watch?

Thanks to its beefy advertising campaign (whose reach made it nearly impossible to avoid), I recently checked out MINI Cooper’s Hammer & Coop advertainment effort.

Featuring a series of extremely well-produced ($$$) Starsky & Hutch-meets-Knight Rider-style webisodes (supported by a bunch of fun features like its Action Name Generator), MINI’s Hammer & Coop site is jam-packed with kitchy 70s retro fun.

The webisodes are Will Farrel-movie-style stupid. They objectify women. They make MINI drivers look like morons. The positioning is risky. The images are somewhat racy.

But they made me—a member of MINI’s professional, 30-something, hipster Gen-X target audience—laugh out loud. More than once. I liked it so much that I even sent the link to some friends. And most importantly, they reinforced my perception that MINIs are FUN.

Which is exactly what MINI’s brand has always stood for.

Last month’s Fast Company featured a piece promoting the idea that “if you want people to like you, first decide who needs to hate you.”

“Most marketers feel that if they make a bold statement, they risk not just alienating customers—but also their boss, and their boss’s boss,” says Charles Rosen, founding partner of Amalgamated ad agency. “That fear takes the edge off of all communications.”

So in order to create a powerful brand identity—the kind with messaging that delivers more than a flaccid “hey”—a brand must be willing to define who ISN’T in its audience. This level of targeting enables a brand to take more risks so that it can actually stand out and reach the right audience.

My dad and his friends probably wouldn’t laugh at or even like Hammer & Coop.

But my dad also wouldn’t be remotely interested in buying a tiny non-luxury car. Which is EXACTLY why Hammer & Coop is so surprisingly smart.

The BrandWeek that just landed on my desk includes a short article about outdoor-gear stalwart Coleman trying to refresh its image via a new “Let’s go outside” advertising campaign. What struck me as cool is that the campaign includes the Coleman Mt. Everest 5.5 Challenge.

The site will chronicle the adventures of a teacher attempting to summit the mountain. While he’s chilling on the tallest rock on Earth, he’ll be sending blog posts and streaming video to the website. Fascinating that Web 2.0 technologies are coming off one of the most remote spots on the planet, eh? Just like being there, but warmer—and with more oxygen.

If you haven’t come across one of Jeep Patriot’s “Choose Your Adventure” interactive movie ads, than you probably haven’t been online in a few days….

I like things that are interactive. I like movies. And I fall in just the right demo to get sucked in by the “Choose Your Adventure” title (which they’re getting sued for using). So I thought I’d give it a spin.

Initial impression? Coooool.

Impression after the first five minutes? Well…I didn’t last that long.

While it’s an excellent, well-produced, and smartly-targeted effort that will probably reel in lots of ADDYs, I clicked away because when I’m online, I don’t have that kind of time—and it wasn’t quite interactive enough to keep me engaged. (Jeep’s ad folks, BBDO and Organic, Inc, probably realized this was going to happen, because unlike most virals that wait until the end to try and gather user info like email addresses, this effort grabs info right up front.)

This experience left me trying to figure out what the cap is on the average user’s online attention span. Obviously, folks can get pulled into online gaming marathons and things like Second Life, but I think those are different from participating in a blatent marketing effort.

Some online sleuthing came up with a wide range of opinions on length—but I think this one is my favorite:

Question: How long should an online video be?

Answer: As long as it needs to be.

What do you think is the ideal length for a viral video or interactive effort?

Help me out. I’m trying to think of any promotion where a renowned brand actually allowed its identity to be changed into something just as well known, but (prior to that point) purely fictional.

Such is a tentative plan involving 7-Eleven and The Simpsons. Select convenience stores would be completely rebranded as Kwik-E-Marts—once found only in animated Springfield—as part of an upcoming feature film promo effort.

In addition to signage, the stores would also stock real-world versions of Kwik-E-Mart staples. The Slurpee, in short, would become the Squishee.

Wes and I hit the 7-Eleven on Mt. Vernon two or three times a day. If the deal goes through, I hope our store gets the Apu makeover. Hmmm…Krusty Burger.

This one’s been around for a while, enjoying renewed airtime during the tourney.

Perfectly resurrects the hard-working “Miller Time” vibe, standing the snob appeal pitch so loved by microbrews right on its ear.

Notice, “it’s a good honest beer at a tasty price,” not the other way ’round. Of course, that’s all many of us want from a cold one.

Nice work. I actually have a taste for a High Life.

Marketing companies used to avoid ultra-specific niche marketing because throwing big-budget resources at small audiences wasn’t that cost effective. Cable television changed that game. With a channel for every interest, it was smart to tailor messages accordingly. And of course the Web is one giant niche machine.

Now, it looks like traditional media is ready to play. Chris Ammon and I were discussing this ad the other day, and he made a great point:

If this showed up on “webcoder.com,” it would be ignored. Even if it only resonates with a small percentage of viewers in the subway station, though, those few will be more likely to respond. It’s sort of like that MINI ad campaign Sara wrote about. Out here in the big world, we’re talking just to you, Code Person, and only you get this message. You’re special.

Companies can go after very specialized audiences using tactics once reserved for big-league consumer goods and services. These “inside info” messages are on the main stage for all to see. Some get it, but most of us scratch our heads in confusion. Either way, however, we’re involved.

I’m not sure if big-time marketing of small messages will pay off in traditional media, but I’m certainly paying attention to the experiment.

“Halfway Sara.”

As a kid, that’s what my dad would call me any time I claimed to complete a job that wasn’t really done—like when I claimed to have “finished” mowing the lawn even though I’d neglected the big patch of green behind the garage. While a decent effort, it didn’t really achieve the desired end goal—hence the “Halfway” label.

Lately, I’ve noticed a lot of “halfway branding” efforts, in which companies seem to invest the time and money creating sharp designs and taglines, but neglect to fully create the brand voice needed to truly complete their brand’s identity—to personify their brands.

And I’m not the only one who’s noticing—per this recent Brand Story post:

There are lots of examples of companies that consistently use identity design to reinforce their brands, but far fewer brands seem to give as much thought to the voice of their communications. MINI does it exceptionally well, across all mediums. The Economist and Apple too. Harley Davidson does a pretty good job (there are exceptions). Saturn used to have unique voice—before it was assimilated.

But what’s the brand voice of Marriott? Cascade? Pepsi? Dell? Citi? Buick? Is there anything unique about the way Kroger, Budget, Hershey’s, or Delta speak to their customers? None of these are bad, but none of them speak in a special way to their customers.

Think about it…what takes a consumer from simply liking a product to actually identifying with and fully embracing a brand? Seems to me it’s pretty much the same qualities that make someone fall in love and identify with certain people: appearance and personality—a brand’s design and voice.

Companies like MINI, Apple, and Harley Davidson have such über-loyal followings because they don’t just look cool, they consistently sound cool—fully personifying their brands as the cool kids in class that target audience members want to hang out with.

So it’s vital that all components in a branding effort incorporate the personality and convey the feel needed to truly create the desired brand perception.

What else do you think results in “halfway branding” efforts?

Established marketing pros can no longer overlook the influential power blogs wield within the marketplace. An impassioned blogger determined to stop often oafish depictions of fathers in television commercials has a major-league ad agency in his crosshairs.

Glenn Sacks is urging Volvo not to award Arnold a big contract because its current commercial for Fidelity Investments shows a cad of a dad showboating after beating his daughter in ping-pong.

Even a year ago, Mr. Sacks probably would have been some crackpot standing in the street holding a sign that read “Arnold Unfair to Dads!” Today, he’s having genuine impact on the marketing decisions of a major automaker. Ignore that kind of power at your peril.