August 13, 2006
“3 rules for managing viral marketing”
Karl Long’s “3 Rules For Viral Marketing”:
* Success bares no relation to investment - Traditional marketing there was generally a relationship between how much you spent and how many people saw your message, there is no such relationship in Viral Marketing
* Viral Marketing does not have a timeline — Traditional marketing calendars, and even the traditional marketing plan is irrelevant when executing and responding to viral marketing efforts. Viral marketing is just not that predictable, which calls for a different kind of planning
* Number of views bare little relation to reach or impact of Viral Marketing - As viral is something that is shared from person to person, you can be sure that many more people hear about it than view it (a little esoteric I know, but I talk about subserviantChicken constantly, and yet have only been to the site once)
Bonus Link from Karl: “Five Implications for The Social Media Agency — Inspired From Agency.com Youtube Pitch.”
1. Interactive Agency business models are subverted by social media.
2. Failure is not just acceptable, it should be encouraged.
3. In Social Media Everyone is a Critic.
4. Experimenting Meaningless Without Measurement.
5. Viral Stewardship — Virals Are Unpredictable So Pay Attention.
All good stuff, so go have a read.
[PS: I’m actively looking for “Marketing 2.0″ stories at the moment, so please feel free to send me a link.]
I’m not convinced re: 1 as it relates to traditional marketing. I’ve seen plenty of plans where that’s the stated intent but few if any where the follow through was done, let alone proved the point.
Failure’s a strong word when it comes to making the ‘investment.’ As I try and understand these models as they might be applied in organisations, I realise there’s a language or understanding gap between those who want to experiment with this stuff and those who cut the cheques. It’s an issue that needs attention.
I’m surprised that you would post anything about Agency.com. Anyone who even uses the word ‘viral’ should be dragged out onto the streets and shot brutally within the idea of a ‘post-cluetrain’ doctrine.
Seriously. Have you seen the try-hard video? It was so lame I didn’t even want to post about it.
Hugh, you are better than this.
Tara, not sure if I agree. You could interpret “Viral” as just another term for what Doc Searls calls a “snowball”.
You could also argue a viral is just another word for what Juri Engstrom calls an object of sociability.
You could also argue that one of my Stormhoek prints is a viral.
A viral is a form of social gesture, no more, no less. A viral is only as good as the person sending it.
But this discussion might be a good post for the future: “What exactly is a viral?”
[Thinking…]
just to clarify my three ‘rules’ were “experiment, monitor, and respond”
Those bullet points that Hugh highlighted, were some differences between viral marketing and traditional marketing.
Thanks for the great post, cheers,
karl
Maybe the biggest issue I have with ‘viral’ is that I don’t see it as a social gesture at all…I just see it as another way traditional marketing has made a perfectly good medium predatory. Egad, can we escape them? Will we know who is authentic and who is just trying to sell us something (because there is nothing social about push — it is merely push — social requires a two-way communication whereas you and I both exchange something that helps us understand where we are each coming from).
I have heard and overheard the term ‘viral’ so many times by so many traditional agencies, it makes me want to wretch. Even people I respect greatly and think are brilliant, now, when I hear them utter the word, it makes me suspect some sort of ‘consumer trickery’ going down.
“Oh yes, we’ll be so very cleverly viral, they won’t be able to tell we are vapid assholes!”
“Product? What product? This is about the brand, the gesture, the reach…it’s ‘viral’, stupid.”
“Look at me! I’m a chicken that will do your bidding! Clever. See how I make you laugh. Please don’t ask my employer whether they still put sawdust into their burger patties!”
I’m sorry to sound so darned negative. I love you, Hugh. You know I do. You are a brilliant man. Stormhoek is great because y’all are so darned self-reflective and don’t think, “OMG, we are so smart.” You are actually listening. Big difference.
Agency.com is everything that makes my skin crawl about ‘viral’. You should really take a look at the brilliant response to it by Coudal Partners:
http://www.coudal.com/unsolicited.php
Coudal Partners is smart. Real. Authentic. They don’t have to create viral bullshit because they actually try and get their clients to listen (I know, I know…radical) to their customers. Their ‘social gestures’ are about …erm… natural, human, real social gestures. Not fabricated crap.
“Tara, not sure if I agree. You could interpret “Viral” as just another term for what Doc Searls calls a “snowball”.”
Exactly. A bad execution doesn’t invalidate the idea. In fact, I think the way to approach it is to take the phrase literally and make your marketing as viral as possible, especially among your evangelists. Making it as easy as possible for passionate members of your community to market for you and turn other community members into evangelists as well.
Viral evangelists? Hmmmm.….
I hear you, Tara. I can also already hear the marketing dorks you speak of using “social geture” 2 years from now, in the same buzzword context they’re using “viral” today.
And then the term “social gesture” will also be negative, therefore we’ll have to come up with YET ANOTHER term to describe what it is that we’re actually talking abut. Heh.
»Anyone who even uses the word ‘viral’ should be dragged out onto the streets and shot brutally…
Careful Tara… that’s what gets the “Pinkos” in trouble every time.
Oh wait, and the “Fascists” too.
For someone who loves charged terminology, are you the best choice to be in charge of the social media dictionary?
Does viral have to be predatory? I hope not, i hope brilliant content rises to the top. I was thinking the other day, wouldn’t it be great if ads were so good and entertaining that you would send them to your friends? And of course the products behind them would have to be brilliant as well. I think viral marketing is just a part of the social media landscape, we’re all connected and we choose to share things we enjoy with friends.
Anyone remember the VW ad from a few years ago, kind of based on the graduate, the guy driving to the wedding, getting stuck at the railroad tracks, walking into the chapel, interrupting the wedding. If that ad had not been on TV, and was just uploaded to youtube what would have happened? I for one loved it, and probably would have sent it to friends.
@Brian.
Heh. Point taken. ‘Them’s fightin’ words’
Viral is predatory when it sets out to ‘become’ viral as in, “We are experts in creating viral video.”
I just can’t let this one go. It really makes us (marketers) a laughing stock to the world of people who just enjoy good content. I hate that. I really do. Why do we keep trying to find the new next best thing? (I’m not saying I’m guilt-free — I suppose that is why I come up with offensive names for stuff so that it doesn’t ‘catch on’)
Why can’t we just be real? Create good content. Yes. Create kickass amazing stuff that people fall in love with. Yes. Do it with passion. Yes. Help people kickass. Yes. (As Kathy says, create passionate users) Make mistakes. Yes. Learn from them. Yes. Have conversations. Yes. Get hi-jacked by a community. Yes. Nurture that community. Yes. etc. etc.
I’m sorry, but I can accept some ads as funny. Even some are art (like the colourful balls ad for Sony). And many are very entertaining. But ‘clever ads’ whether on tv or online (you are merely changing the medium) are no closer to being post-cluetrain (or even cluetrain) than sending samples of Clorox through the mail (which, is actually, still more effective).
Real viral video? Check out the top of YouTube. Some crazy kids dancing in a high school gymnasium. Then there was this crazy 79 year old British guy who had fallen in love with the idea of citizen media. Oh. And check out Snakes on a Plane. Not planned, but New Line was absolutely brilliant in their response. The virality of that? Some obsessed guy from Jersey’s blog. Not paid, but invited, at the last minute, to attend the opening. Let me name a few more: Bowie Chick, Chinese Boys, Goatse (don’t look this up at the office), fuh2…etc. Not planned. Not hatched by some brilliant marketing firm for a product.
Let’s go back to Cluetrain. I don’t think most people understand that yet. Jeaneane is right.
Ack. Sorry, Hugh. This rests at the core of my passion.
I think Tara’s is a knee-jerk reaction to the crap people try to pass off as viral marketing. Agency.com’s efforts are a great case in point, and I have to say I agree with her on that account.
But there is huge promise in viral marketing. It’s just not easy to make something viral. As Karl says, “virals are unpredictable”.
Tara’s all about being part of your community, and I think that’s great. But if you can get the attention of a million people in a good way and on the cheap, shouldn’t you do it?
By the way, if you think Agency.com is clueless, check out this article I just wrote about JWT’s (the oldest ad agency in the U.S.) attempts at viral marketing:
http://phoenomi.com/2006/08/13/the-mystery-that-is-viral-marketing/
I agree Tara that you can’t “make something viral”, and in my post I explain that right at the begining. The old creative process of refining one idea internally and then releasing it to the world fails when trying to “create” viral, like trying to catch a fart in a cage. This is why I advocate a different creative approach, more a portfolio of experiments, 1 in 20 might take off, and that’s the point that you need to respond. What you highlight with Snakes on a Plane, is a perfect example of a good response, and good stewardship. Snake on a Plane was engineered to be “able” to go viral, with it’s myspace skins, and embedable sound boards, so to say it was some kind of organic natural process is not accurate.
Actually, Tara probably nailed it with her SoaP example. SoaP went viral initially due to two thing:
1) The title (which is a story in itself), combined with 2) Samuel L. Jackson attached.
The two together resulted in something that New Line couldn’t possibly have planned — people got excited about the thought of Jules Winnfield from Pulp Fiction stuck on a plane full of snakes, and how hilarious his reaction would be.
Hence, the reshoot to include the requested line:
“That’s it! I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!”
What New Line did right was, as Tara says, *get out of the way* and let people run with it. Then they interjected themselves into the story that the people online had already decided to participate in. That’s when the skins, sound boards, and free airfare to the premiere for the “Snakes on a Blog” guy became viral marketing management genius.
So, up front, SoaP was more happy accident than anything, but I guess the point everyone else already knows is you can’t just manufacture this type of phenom.
But you *can* work your ass off to try to make things that truly captivate the collective imagination, and you can properly play along with the crowd when it works. You just ain’t gonna get there with focus groups and old school message control, and I think that’s Tara’s point.
I just didn’t like the idea of being dragged out onto the streets and shot brutally for using the word viral. But that’s just me.
I know…shooting is harsh. Maybe just flogged brutally?
“Actually, Tara probably nailed it with her SoaP example. SoaP went viral initially due to two thing:
1) The title (which is a story in itself), combined with 2) Samuel L. Jackson attached.
The two together resulted in something that New Line couldn’t possibly have planned — people got excited about the thought of Jules Winnfield from Pulp Fiction stuck on a plane full of snakes, and how hilarious his reaction would be.”
Yes and no.
SoaP went viral early on, but back then the only ‘buzz’ it was generating was who could make the biggest joke out of the title, the funniest trailer mashup about how bad the movie was going to be. The question then was ‘which blogger is going to be the first to receive a ‘cease and desist’ order from New Line’s lawyers?’.
When New Line suprised everyone and openly EMBRACED what the bloggers were doing, THAT is when it seriously went viral, and shifted from bloggers making fun of the movie, to promoting it. Because at that point, the bloggers felt that they suddenly had a sense of ownership in the movie, since New Line was smart enough to reach out to them and include them in the marketing of the film.
Again, whatever success this movie has will be a direct result of New Line being smart enough to empower their fans to promote the movie for them. They took an activity that bloggers were already engaging in, and rewarded them for it, instead of sending lawyers after them.
good thing there is no relationship between success and investment.….…..I’d hate to think I’d have to put money into something other than my product
xoxo
Shoelover
Rules for Viral Marketing
Rule 1 : There are no rules.
Rule 2 : See Rule 1
Rule 3 : Sometimes Rule 1 may or may not be in effect.
Rule 4 : See Rules 3 & 1
We always try to explain that which we cannot capture. That being said I don’t think we can ever build a set of rules around what “viral” marketing really means. Too many narrow niches and global microbrands flying about with agendas, non-agendas, and agendas trying to be non-agendas.
Enjoy it if your on the train and wish that you were on the train if you are not.
Mack, I thought that’s what I said.
Tara, if you’re flogging, maybe.
That was crass, but what else am I supposed to do with a statement like that?
Viral is a dead word — totally dead.
It’s all ready been embedded in the old paradigms as a form of mass marketing/campaigns.
Let’s kill the beast for good.
Am I the only one that sees all of this discussion about the semantics of the term “viral” as nothing more than one side of a marketing fence bitching at the other side of the marketing fence?
I mean, come on. You are all debating about a word. The twisting of words is what marketers have done, currently do, and always will do.
Tara, you’re debating that your vision of how one uses (or doesn’t use) the word viral is more “humane” or more “correct” because of the context of the usage. At the end of the day you are still trying to sell product. Where your debate leaves me rolling my eyes is that you are trying to increase the bottom line and put more $$ in the coffers of your company and/or the company you work for. You are a Marketer. You are trying to sell product and you are hoping that your ideas will start as a bunch of small “personal” brushfires ultimately making it to a huge-ass grass-roots prarie fire.
It is for this reason that I am left with a feeling that Hugh understands this and you don’t. He holds nothing back from the admittance that this is about making money (fenderkicker is a perfect example). He is using his personal brand to make money for his clients, and one only assumes, himself. While doing so, he doesn’t make apologies for it.
While we are debating the semantics of verbal context, I vote that anyone that calls themselves a Marketer should be hauled out on the street and shot.