Want to hazard a guess as to who is both Time’s person of the year and Adweek’s advertising agency of the year?

Why, you of course.

With 2006’s onset of the label ‘viral marketing’ came corporate America’s acknowledgement that, in today’s day and age, the average consumer has more control over the actions of large companies than ever before. Corporate America’s fear, and awe, of viral videos has led to some surprising changes in both marketing and customer service.

And that’s not a bad thing at all.

But just in case you’ve been hidden under a rock for the last couple years, perhaps we should define the term. Given the subject matter, it only makes sense to use the Wikipedia definition: viral video refers to video clip content which gains widespread popularity from sharing with others on the Internet, typically through e-mail or instant messaging, blogs and other media-sharing Web sites. Viral videos are often humorous in nature and may range from televised comedy sketches, such as Saturday Night Live’s ‘Lazy Sunday,’ to not-intended-for-release amateur video clips like ‘Star Wars kid.’

Basically, the idea is that one person makes a funny video, perhaps of an experiment involving the mixing of Mentos and Diet Coke. That video is then so good that the people who first see it spread it to all of their friends, who then continued to spread it ‘virally’ to all of their friends. Eventually most of the online community has seen it, after which the mainstream media starts to notice the story, until the entire thing has snowballed to truly epic proportions.

And here’s where things get interesting: When such a video involves products, like the previously mentioned Mentos mix, it can have a surprising affect on the fortunes of a company. In this case, Mentos embraced the video, claiming that the company had a 15 percent rise in sales and approximately $100 million worth of free exposure. Diet Coke reported no such rise in sales, which may be due to the fact that Coca-Cola originally dismissed the entire thing while Mentos worked to exploit it.

‘It’s an entertaining phenomenon,’ Coca-Cola spokeswoman Susan McDermott told the Wall Street Journal in June. ‘We would hope people want to drink [Diet Coke] more than try experiments with it. The craziness with Mentos … doesn’t fit with the brand personality.’

Since that statement was issued, Coca-Cola has gone ahead and decided to incorporate the videos and other user-generated footage onto its Web site — but what’s more important is that it started a buzz about viral videos and the idea of viral marketing. Companies, like Blendtec, in the online series ‘Will it Blend?’, are trying to find ways to make commercials that spread like viral videos. The fact that in order for something to become viral it has to be funny, horrifying or creative means that at least one good thing will come out of this: Commercials should get more entertaining.

But seriously, if a company wants publicity like this, it has to be willing to let its consumers run rampant with its nearest and dearest possession: its brand name. The best viral commercials still aren’t the ones designed by marketing departments, and companies are starting to realize that they may have to loosen up to cash in. At the annual Association of National Advertisers last October, Procter & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley urged companies to ‘let go’ of their brands, a surprising statement from a central figure in a very conservative industry. And product manufacturers aren’t the only ones who are learning common sense. The recent Internet success of rock band OK Go has shown what can happen if artists give away some of their content for free.

‘Viral videos can be a way to sample things that will lead you to find more by the artist,’ cineshare.com Marketing Manager Erick Opeka told the Houston Chronicle last October. ‘It also allows the artist to find their audience very, very quickly.’

The most interesting thing about viral videos is that they can actually provide an income for starving artists. Not only do Web sites like YouTube level the playing field for poor up-and-comers, but with the help of websites like Revver, the creators of the videos are getting part of the pot. Revver gives 20 percent of click-through revenue to Web sites that post Revver clips, with the remaining 80 percent split 50/50 between Revver and the content’s creator. The ads themselves are imbedded in the ‘Revverized’ clips, and go with them wherever they travel online.

The creators of the Diet Coke and Mentos clip, Fritz Grobe and Stephen Voltz, have made $35,000 so far from the Revverized version of their video.

It’s enough to make you want to buy a video camera.