He didn't shoot the bear, but did he hit the brand?

Practitioners of advertising research will be increasingly familiar with briefings talking about a "viral" element to an upcoming campaign. Of course, on most occasions when we see this word, we know that it's not "viral" at all, but rather something that the advertiser and agency hope will become viral. In other words, they hope that with some well-placed "seeding" their content will be tweeted, blogged, "liked" and linked into immortality. Much has already been written about the special sauce ingredients that are required to conjure up this kind of alchemy, with the Old Spice campaign being the one that everyone knows. This minor masterpiece combines humour and sex appeal (two of the most frequent ingredients) but does not forget to throw in a clear benefit from using the product, which you can readily associate with the brand. So, what of a more recent YouTube phenomenon involving a reluctant hunter and a bear, brought to us by the Tippexperience? If you haven't seen it yet then go and have a look. You might even be the 11 millionth view, but you might want to turn your speakers down if you are in polite company. For those of us of a certain age who, when we were students, used to write our essays down, with a pen, it is nice to see dear old Tipp-Ex alive and well. It's a brand which many might have thought had been consigned to the great office in the sky, right next to the carbon paper and the typing pool. And yet, here it is in the brave new world of interactive digital media. And yet... There's no doubt that it's a great example of the viral genre. It really has `gone viral' by  combining humour with an element of active participation. It also makes very creative use of YouTube, ensuring that the brand is kept at the centre, with the hunter using the mouse product to blank out the word "shoots" and invite alternatives. However, my question would be the same one that still gets heads scratching when you bring it up in debriefs about "traditional media" - who or what is the star of this communication? Is it really the brand? Is the brand central to the humour? When you are "actively participating" - repeatedly - are you actively participating with the brand? My concern is that the more you play with this, the less you are thinking about Tipp-Ex. You're simply typing in words, not correcting them as you go, and therefore becoming more and more detached from the product benefit. One of the most consistent findings in the research we do for our clients is that the best brand impact comes where the brand is the star - the agent of positive change. This is the case at the start of the Tippexperience when "shoots" is blanked out and something more palatable can be written in. However, this happens once. (Unless you type in Tipp-Ex ... try it ...) Then comes an apparent oversight which seemed so unlikely that I had to check several times to make sure I wasn't missing something. There's no link to find out more about the product. What if I was so impressed with this gizmo that I want to find out which retailers stock it? What if I want to buy several, right now? The Tippexperience allows me to watch a man have fun with a bear, but it doesn't make it easy for me to get hold of some Tipp-Ex, which seems like an opportunity missed. Don't get me wrong, I really do love the Tippexperience. It's just that, if I was the client, I'd want to be sure it was working as hard as possible for my brand. If search volumes on Google are a reliable indicator of sales, then Tipp-Ex has just gone off the scale. If so, good luck to them. Could it have been better still if the brand were the star?