Check out this controversial contest entry for the doritos viralocity contest: http://bit.ly/9a44gN http://www.doritosviralocity.ca/Gallery/VideoDetails.aspx?v=1916 What do you think of having a contest in which the winner is the entrant who makes their video go the most viral? The controversy here is that the entrant already built a large social network prior to the contest and is leveraging that network to win. S/he seems to be winning by a longshot. Should winning be based on the quality of the video or on the persons ability to make a large social network?
SORRY I MADE A MISTAKE IT IS THIS ONE FOR THE doritos viralocity contest: http://www.doritosviralocity.ca/Gallery/VideoDetails.aspx?v=16781 OR http://bit.ly/d1No23 What do you think of having a contest in which the winner is the entrant who makes their video go the most viral? The controversy here is that the entrant already built a large social network prior to the contest and is leveraging that network to win. S/he seems to be winning by a longshot. Should winning be based on the quality of the video or on the persons ability to make a large social network?
No mistake made. This video is the #1 video: http://www.doritosviralocity.ca/Gallery/VideoDetails.aspx?v=1916 that's where the controversy is.
Actually i was asking a legitimate question, and "Doritos Viralocity" is a contestant trying to get you to watch his video. The contest is about who can make their video go the most viral, and apparently the people who made the video in the top spot have had some "viral" videos in the past. Is this unfair or is it a case of someone entering a contest that they already have some skills in (ie akin to a painting enthusiast entering a painting contest).