Congratulations! Your online video went viral! People are watching it repeatedly and reposting it all over the Internet. But — what does it all mean? How do you measure the impact of what all those views actually mean to your brand? Chief Marketer recently talked with Matt Cutler, CMO of Boston-based third-party measurement firm Visible Measures, to get his thoughts on how marketers should gauge the success of their video campaigns.

CM: What mistakes are you seeing marketers make when it comes to measuring online video?

CUTLER: They take too narrow a view. Modern campaigns today tend to consist of paid, owned and earned components. When you’re measuring online video, make sure you’re looking at all three of those, and doing so on an apples-to-apples basis. You could be running paid pre-roll across five ad networks, each of which is self-reporting data in a different way. You need to be able to compare [data] across those networks.

There’s also a lack of appreciation when it comes to the earned side of the house. In many of the campaigns we’re involved in, anywhere from 20% to 80% or even higher of the total reach is driven by earned media, or community/social-driven placement. The extreme there is things like video games and movie trailers, where 90% to 95% socially-driven viewership is not uncommon.

CM: Is the viral component still intimidating for many marketers? Do you find they still don’t understand how to leverage or measure it?

CUTLER: You have a small number of marketers — like Microsoft and Nike, or even smaller brands like Carl’s Jr. — that have done a lot of experimentation and are increasingly savvy and competent, and they’re establishing leadership positions. Then you have a lot of other folks who are trying to get up to speed. Twenty hours of new video content are uploaded to YouTube every minute. There’s a huge ocean of new content appearing constantly, so the notion of something taking off — particularly a brand-driven ad — is increasingly statistically improbable. It does happen, but those are literally lightning strikes. For a brand to participate in those areas, it needs sophisticated plans and a promotion budget to drive the initial surge of awareness — and then sustain it.

CM: Which vertical markets are doing the best job of leveraging online video?

CUTLER: The entertainment industry, including the film studios and the video game manufacturers, which isn’t a huge surprise. There’s also been a huge interest in music videos, but how that translates into sales is unclear to everybody. High-tech firms like Apple, Microsoft and Google are also increasingly active, as are CPG, the beverage category, and quick-service restaurants.

If you look at what works in online video, it tends to be humorous and edgy, and it leaves room for people to speculate and discuss. Automotive and pharmaceutical have been noticeably absent, which isn’t too much of a surprise, if you look at the content of traditional auto and pharma campaigns. They’re fact-based and don’t leave room for conversation, so they don’t get a lot of traction in social.

CM: What big trends do you see in online video for 2010?

CUTLER: Campaigns that are designed to have audience participation are evolving rapidly. I think we’ll see more flash mob/public intervention campaigns where brands do things in public spaces to attract attention. One of the top campaigns in 2009 was T-Mobile Dance, where they took over the Liverpool Street train station with an impromptu event, filmed it and turned it into a compelling campaign in the U.K.

The largest viral video campaign of 2009 was Evian Roller Babies, which was a fairly sophisticated production, and was [initially planned to be] purely online. It involved a massive launch promotion effort at the outset, including the home-page takeover of YouTube in several countries simultaneously. They had a fairly healthy promotional budget behind a strong piece of creative, they launched it hard, and it took off further than anyone imagined — the campaign even transferred to TV. The notion that big results with online video require sophisticated media plans is becoming understood.

How much spam did you get today?

That very question is in itself such a clich

For more than 60 years Consumer Reports has provided independent and impartial opinions on a variety of products and services in its mission “to test products, inform the public and protect consumers.” Its success can be measured as much by the confidence consumers have in its opinions as by how well the magazine has absorbed the marketing lessons of the companies whose products it tests.

During all those decades, the Yonkers, NY-based Consumers Union has become a savvy direct marketer and brand builder itself.

In addition to its magazine, CU publishes ancillary reference books and maintains a Web site, which alone has more than 300,000 paid subscribers. With that background, CU seemed a little behind the curve when it established e-ratings last November, training its critical eye on e-commerce sites.

The methodology, criteria and ratings system is standard Consumer Reports. Sites are grouped by product category and are selected based on traffic, popularity or relevance to the category. Each site is approached as the organization imagines a typical consumer would: browsing for products, searching for specific items or features and placing an order.

Ratings System

Sites are rated for policies (how clearly the site explains security, privacy, shipping, handling, returns and other customer service practices); usability (how easy it is for someone to navigate the site and find products or services); and content (how many products are offered, how detailed and useful are each product’s specifications, and the like).

New e-ratings are added every week and old ratings are updated as needed.

Overall, the criteria are fair. Approaching each site as a typical consumer would is something we’d encourage more Web designers to do. It certainly would improve most of the sites we’ve looked at – as well as our overall humor. And we like that CU rates the sites on how they present their various privacy and back-end policies.

With one exception, CU has done its usual exemplary job of rating the sites from its criteria. But the quality and clarity – to use CU’s phrase – of how a site explains its security and privacy practices are not as significant as how a site describes its shipping, handling, ordering and return policies. Not all consumers value the privacy of their personal data as much as they might the security of their online transactions.

We think Consumers Union is doing a disservice to its members here. It would be better to split the policies rating into two parts – security and fulfillment, for example – so that consumers concerned about one or the other can be better guided.