Whether you're the type who spends an hour every day chuckling at lolcats, or you were the last person in your office to know what the heck "Lazy Sunday" was, by this point in time I'd wager that most of us are at least familiar with the concept of viral videos and Internet memes. But what happens when these Internet in-jokes are let loose on the real world as a guerrilla marketing scheme, like we saw in Boston? Or when viral videos are used to sling mud from behind a curtain of anonymity during a presidential election?

You may have heard about the American Red Cross's Bay Area chapter's new "Prepare Bay Area" ad campaign. So far it's included a mobile billboard in Justin Herman Plaza showing scenes of destruction and the tagline "What do we have to do to get your attention?", fake "Earthquake Early Warning System" bells (no such system exists for earthquakes, of course), and other tactics designed to startle Bay Area residents into taking steps to prepare for a natural disaster. There was even a fake Craigslist ad (which is down now, but click the link for a screenshot) describing an apartment for rent ("Beautiful rubble floors ... drywall and roof particle counter tops") and showing pictures of a building demolished by an earthquake.

You may have also heard about the "Big Sister" video over on YouTube, which combines footage from the "conversations" pieces on Sen. Hillary Clinton's website with footage from the famous "1984" Mac commerical (although it uses the newer version where the Hammer Lady wears an iPod). It ends with the Apple logo morphed into a O (for Sen. Barack Obama), and the tagline: "On Jan. 14, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like 1984."

What do these have in common? In the first case, you have an established, respected organization, the Red Cross, adopting more in-your-face tactics than we may be used to. I'm used to seeing Red Cross ads and PSAs on the bus, on TV, in magazines...the usual. Are those usual channels enough to really grab my attention and shake me into action? Probably not. (In full disclosure, yeah, I do have a "disaster kit" in a closet at home in case I'm displaced by The Big One, so I guess I'm one of the 6 percent of Bay Area residents the Red Cross says are prepared, although I could always be more prepared.) Even if you find these methods too "fearmongery," or even if you agree with me that the Craigslist post is just...confusing, I'd argue that the ads are still effective. They get people thinking, talking, blogging, et cetera -- and they always include the Red Cross's name and website. So even if your initial reaction is "Huh?" you have a place to go for more information.

In the second case, you have viral video with a political bent, advocating one candidate over another. The problem is, no one knows who made it. Obama's side isn't taking credit, of course, even though the URL shown at the end is BarackObama.com. So even though it doesn't actually attack Hillary on any actual issues or positions, it couldn't be fairly discredited or rebutted even if it did. Since we're so early in the primary process, you know that this won't be the last. Candidates and PACs trying to Swift-Boat each other is one thing, but when those dubious claims start floating around the Web and filling up our inboxes, it'd be nice to at least know who's on the other end. There's a reason why political ads on TV must disclose who paid for them -- because they stretch the truth. So knowing whose agenda the ad is supporting is often more illuminating than the ad's content. As the Internet gets more involved with each election (this election is even getting a channel on MySpace), it'd be nice if the same rules applied. But they won't.

Public service announcements about natural disasters, presidential elections: These are serious things. And while guerrilla marketing can be effective, we've also seen it backfire. As it grows more common, do you think there's any line that shouldn't be crossed? Should anonymous videos like the "Big Sister" mashup simply be ignored, and is that even possible in today's "everything everywhere is being blogged about at all times" society? What do you think?

UPDATE 3/22: The "Big Sister" guy has outed himself. A commenter said that he'd been fired by his company, but according to Phil de Vellis's post, he resigned from Blue State Digital because the Internet company does work for several presidential campaigns and he didn't want to harm the company's reputation. I hope his pride of accomplishment is worth more to him than his job, but kudos to him for coming forward.