Along with the usual YouTube videos, leaflets, tweets, etc, there are also three accompanying posters.

The Tories’ last poster campaign, you know, the one sporting a rather smoothly airbrushed David Cameron, looking more like Morph then a regular human being, didn’t take long for the blogosphere to say something about it.

Doctored versions of the poster started springing up everywhere, from Facebook to websites such as mydavidcameron.com, which even uploaded blank templates for people to edit as they saw fit.

And it only took a few hours Monday morning for exactly the same thing to happen again:

If the Tories had replaced their entire poster campaign from the previous in order to stem the effort non-conservatives were going to with parodying their messages as The Independent had reported, they failed. Before lunchtime #ivenevervotedtory was trending worldwide on Twitter:

• #ivenevervotedtory because actually I think Gordon and Alistair have done a great job … mwahahahaha
• #ivenevervotedtory because that New Labour, New Danger ad campaign still gives me nightmares
• #ivenevervotedtory because I believe in genuine co-operative values not made up twaddle
• #ivenevervotedtory because of their position on Europe. Oh and because they remind me of all the stuck-up braying arses I was at uni with!
• #ivenevervotedtory because Phil Collins will come back if I do
• #ivenevervotedtory because they are home to homophobic bigots and promote an unequal society
• #ivenevervotedtory because Jim Davidson does. And you don’t want to be associated with that c**t

By mid week, the ‘I’ve never voted Tory but’ poster parodies had made pretty good coverage, both online, and nationally. They had spread across all manner of social networks and news sites, from Facebook to New Statesman. Seemingly a fail for the Conservatives, and a win for the Government. However, was this exactly what the Conservatives wanted to happen? (Cue evil genious laugh)

As Paul Owen wrote in his blog over at the Guardian, the new posters practically beg to be altered. The slogans are set out on big blue oblongs, making them so simple to edit my 5 year old cousin could manage it, and that half sentence; “I’ve never voted Tory, but” pleads for defacement louder than a whitewash wall in the middle of Hackney.

The defacement of the posters helped elevate public interest in the original campaign to levels well above what our political apathy often allows for, and at far lesser cost. Plus, by the end of Monday, #ivenevervotedlabour had replaced #ivenevervotedtory, which was no longer trending:

• #ivenevervotedlabour because ultimately they run out of other people's money
• #ivenevervotedlabour and never will because the bastards have stolen my hard earned pension
• #ivenevervotedlabour because they are a bunch of joyless self righteous authoritarians who want to dictate how we all lead our lives
• #ivenevervotedlabour because their policies are designed to keep poor people poor
• #ivenevervotedlabour because ALL Labour Governments run out of our money in the end
• #ivenevervotedlabour Because quantitative easing is the economics policy of Mugabe

The Tory tweeters had come out in force, in their Uggs and Jack Wills, probably sitting in the Sloaney Pony in Parsons Green, tweeting furiously on their iPhones.

If anything, the tweets from both sides provided a lot of public opinion, more so than you’d expect to get from spending thousands on focus groups.

As the dust slowly starts to settle and the posters continue to bounce through peoples’ inboxes, you’ve got to ask, was this a stroke of viral marketing genius? 

Good question. And this is exactly the question I found myself asking as I logged into YouTube to check out their latest changes to their interface for an upcoming blog post. 

When searching for a recent video we uploaded (Chameleon’s view of PR in 2010’ – a short video highlighting some of our predictions for public relations in the new year), I took note of the ‘Related Videos’ to the side.

Whilst Steve was insistent that the relation of our video to clips from Miss Universe 2010 had something to do with the fact that he was first to appear on the film, after a quick look we realised it was in fact the titles were very similar.

This is interesting as the tags for each video are completely  different. It would appear that for the moment, YouTube is favouring indexing videos via the titles, placing less of a weighting on the tags users have specifically selected to categorise their content.

Whilst having the advantages of stopping users spreading content across YouTube, tagging videos with irrelevant key words, with the internet expanding rapidly, and more and more digital content pouring onto the internet, have YouTube picked the proper way to index their videos? Is there a better way?