I wonder if people intentionally planned that these ads would have a backlash? I am not entirely sure if the creative team is clever enough to have created a video with lasting viral or social impact. I can see nothing with this add which will bring it into social consciousness for kids/teens or impact on vernacular - another big win for media. Although I could be wrong -certainly Gabrielle Leigh thinks I am.

However, as always, controversy in the press means that these ads will get more exposure. More people go to Youtube to find them, watch and share them and more people can talk about it. Advertising in social media is all about the conversation rather than the image, so perhaps this ad campaign will be quite successful.

I am also interested in the value of this ad as a social record - what does it tell us? I thought I had read that it was launched only for online - what does that tell us about expectations of online audiences? It is also directed at kids and although I have not seen the 'emo' version, it seems to have age groups on the ad which are not the target audience. The element of derision teamed with humour which seems to be the fashion in the vernacular - calling people and actions 'gay' for example meaning lame, or calling someone a 'bitch' as a term of affection. I suppose it is not a new fashion and every generation has it to some extent.

How will this social phenomenon be represented in our archival and cultural heritage institutions? Is it important to them or us? Who would want to know about it in the future? What does this phenomenon tell us about our society and where will online social advertising go to next? Such fascinating subjects and of particular interest to me and my PhD. This ad is TAC, so theoretically, the Public Records Office of Victoria will end up having custody of this ad - but will it come with all the rest of the information that will make it a social record? Or will there simply be a copy of the video itself, as is common in archives, isolated from its social context?