Free has a price, and it’s usually subjecting ourselves to marketing based on the magic numbers games.

Here at VoipTechChat(.com!) we don’t (as of this writing, but things change…) have any paid advertising on the site, and have abandoned AdWords, since it’s giving away real estate and not getting a lot of value. While we are open to targeted advertising (if you have a phone to sell, we are available to pitch it!), we appreciate that generic revolving text ads aren’t super valuable to anyone.

Today I started noticing the heavy addition of leading ads in my YouTube videos and I realized a critical feature all ads should share, and very few do:You should want to watch an ad. You should want to share it with your friends. You should be ABLE to share it with your friends.

When I see a clever ad on TV, regardless of if I like the product or want to buy it, I will send it to my friends. I tell two people, they tell two, etc. Maybe I have a blog with three regular readers and I want to show them. Which leads me to two questions:

1. Why pay to produce an ad and air an ad on television, but not upload it to video sites like youtube where people can view it and share it for free?

2. Why would Youtube, of all places, have clever ads in front of videos, but not a link to the ad itself?

When creating an ad-supported service, whether it’s a “free” calling card, “free” conference server, “free” social networking site, “free” blog,  the key test should always be:  is this advertising content either useful, entertaining, or both for my users? Can my users easily share this advertising content with their friends on an entirely opt-in basis? If people are interested in the ad and sharing the ad, the chances become much higher they will buy the product or service being advertised. If it’s not useful or entertaining, why would you put your reputation behind it?

Many companies have failed at their attempts to artificially create viral content, now companies are actively hindering it to their own detriment.