In a way, APIs are a kind of reproductive marketing, inviting others to repurpose and remix information, in turn creating something entirely new.

yes indeed they, although I was hoping to save that for a more serious post... big difference though is of course intelligence, Despite all appearances to the contrary, programmers aren't nearly as smart as marketers... With APIs they can reproductively market to each other, and just possibly kill their daddies (you know those paid software companies that actually pay salaries) in the process. But in darwinian terms they are a bit of an isolated population, no?

At the moment they're absolutely a bit of an isolated population. But I wonder if the future doesn't hold something different. Just looking at RSS as a kind of API (after all it is a bit of fairly raw data being served up), all of a sudden the laymen (like myself) has the ability to play with the information in new ways. I feel like this Steven Johnson article describing web 2.0 as a rainforest (www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/departments/emerging-technology/) begins to speak to that.

Also, wasn't sure if was supposed to have taken offense to the 'disgusting' link, but did want to mention I noticed it (not surprisingly it's how I ended up here). So, are you agreeing with my problem with the term 'viral' or was the article 'disgusting'?

the article was rather good, putting the link on the disgusting was a bit overboard, the whole little post is over the top flippant and that's probably where I lost the ship completely... All apologies, the article was the jumping off ground for the post, it deserves a better linking phrase.

And while I'm in clarification mode, I don't really think marketers are smarter then programmers. I have a love/hate relationship with both groups, and they have their own specific geniuses and tragic flaws. That and I've done both activities in my life...

As for APIs I've written about them in the past, and will in the future again, but don't have the time to really do it right now. Short answer, there is something there, but it might not be as pretty as promised..

No worries, I can respect your disgust with viral marketing, although it may not have come out completely, the article was supposed to be a wake up call to marketers who all try to emulate one stupid chicken. The message I meant to convey was that anything can be 'viral,' and trying to create something based on some set of rules (like it needs to having a dancing fat kid with a lightsaber in a chicken suit), is useless (but unfortunately something marketers are thinking about every day).

With that said, I think there's something to the idea of reproductive marketing. I've been thinking a lot about feedback loops lately, and it fits in nicely.

Also, have I mentioned I really hate hearing about subservient chicken?

I've just been contracted to come up with viral marketing ideas. I've been a bit of a programmer, too, so I guess I fit in nicely with both love/hate groups of yours.

What's so frustrating to me is that viral marketing can't be held by the confines of a target audience, yet it seems that ad agencies try to define their consumers anyway. Oh, and this is the second time I've been hired under the premise of creating something like the chicken--as if this type of marketing could just be bottled. If that was the case, every agency would be selling the same successful formula.
Oh, and coincidentally, I don't sleep at night. I work.

Anyway, on reproductive marketing, it sounds to me like reproductive marketing is that point in which we are using a brand to reinforce our own individuality. That's when the marketers can rely on us to market them.