There is a fascinating conversation playing out on TechCrunch about "guerrilla" tactics for launching viral videos into the upper echelon of YouTube and other social media sites.

In his post "The Secret Strategies Behind Many “Viral” Videos", Dan Greenburg offers a glimpse at his PR companies' secret sauce for pushing video viral.

Have you ever watched a video with 100,000 views on YouTube and thought to yourself: “How the hell did that video get so many views?” Chances are pretty good that this didn’t happen naturally, but rather that some company worked hard to make it happen – some company like mine.

The techniques range from general social media best practices for format (length, title convention, etc), to the downright icky (faking conversations, BS personas, ratings manipulation, etc.).

The truth is that Dan is dishing techniques that many agencies have been using for months (if not years).

I would encourage you to read the article, as well as the follow up piece "Follow Up To The Viral Video Post: Dan Wants Another Word" by Michael Arrington.

A lot of the discussion in the comments centers on the ethical issues of brands and agencies engaging in these types of activities to push content and to shape public taste. No one seems to be asking questions about the responsibilities of the host community. Why is YouTube so easy to game? Shouldn't the site be able to monitor and ding patterns of behaviour that are obviously manipulative? If you can't trust ranking and ratings on these sites, why bother having them?