August 13, 2006

what is a viral, anyway?

cluetrain for.jpg
The very smart and talen­ted Tara Hunt, auteur of the suc­cess­ful post-Cluetrain “move­ment”, “Pinko Mar­ke­ting”, takes me to task in the com­ments for wri­ting about “Virals”:

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.

So I reply:

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.

Sure, thanks to cer­tain top-down meatheads in the ad biz, the word “viral” has a bad name. But crea­ting a viral and crea­ting a blog post isn’t that much dif­fe­rent, as the crea­tor has no con­trol on what hap­pens to it. You make it, put it out there, and see what hap­pens. Neither the ad agency or the blog­ger has much con­trol over the final out­come. But that’s what makes post-Cluetrain mar­ke­ting so damn inte­res­ting.
I think where tra­di­tio­nal mar­ke­ters and ad agen­cies screw up in this space is, they fail to unders­tand that a viral [or a “snow­ball”, call it what you will] is not a mes­sage, but in fact a social ges­ture.
Ooze, Baby. It’s all about the Ooze.
[UPDATE:] John Dodds pipes in:

For me, a major pro­blem is that just as it was wrong to turn the word brand into a verb, it’s been wrong to turn viral into a noun (and the same esta­blished par­ties are guilty in both cases). To do so sug­gests that crea­ting a viral is the goal when the goal is actually the sprea­ding not the creation.

"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter. A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.]. A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.

5 Responses to “what is a viral, anyway?”

  1. karl long says:

    In many ways I can empathize with Tara’s sen­ti­ment, I think the term ‘viral’ is an overly abu­sed term, and it reeks of hype. That being the case, the way an ‘idea’ or ‘social ges­ture’ pas­ses from per­son to per­son acts very much like a virus. It’s also inte­res­ting, many things that are con­si­de­red ‘viral’ only bare watching once, take the sub­ser­viant chic­ken, who the hell goes there on a regu­lar basis, it’s kind of like once you’ve seen it you’re ino­cu­la­ted (sorry i’m paraph­ra­sing myself there).
    This post from Guy Kawa­saki, tal­king with Seth Godin is inte­res­ting:
    http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/08/the_web_20_no_b.html
    In it Seth talks about why peo­ple share or spread ideas:
    1. They (the cus­to­mers) unders­tand it
    2. They want it to spread
    3. They believe that sprea­ding it will enhance their power
    Now, those points do ring true for me, but they are all things that mar­ke­ters are noto­riously bad at figu­ring out. If orga­ni­za­tions wait for defi­ni­tive data on the points Seth high­lights, before they expe­ri­ment with social media, then they will never get anything done. Or worse they will waste a lot of money on focus groups before relea­sing an expen­sive waste of time cam­paign that ever­yone igno­res. Bold Moves anyone? the coke show?
    Best,
    Karl

  2. Guy Sie says:

    It’s kind of ama­zing that ad agen­cies mana­ged to trans­form the thought behind a viral from
    “Hey, dude, look at this. It’s cool!“
    to
    “You will look at this. Pay no atten­tion to the man behind the cur­tain. It IS cool. We said so.”

  3. Shazz says:

    Yikes, more attemp­ted 2.0 ter­mi­no­logy revi­sio­nism! *yawn* :0
    Yup, the term viral may have been semi-appropriated by trad mar­ke­ting types, but as Karl says, ‘sprea­ding like a virus’ is still a valid con­cept for desc­ri­bing the dif­fu­sion of an idea through unplan­ned social con­nec­tions.
    Per­so­nally, I think little bits (drops?) of ooze have been around for a long time; we’re now recog­ni­zing its power and honou­ring it. For exam­ple, I think of Wilson’s revi­val of clan tar­tans in the 1700s. He could not have for­seen (or con­tro­lled) the ulti­mate (mar­ke­ting) impact of his sim­ple ges­ture to assign tar­tans to many clans who had lost their his­to­ri­cal pat­terns during a pro­lon­ged period of poli­ti­cal troubles/violence.
    Shazz

  4. veedub says:

    a viral is just a hit. something that no-one can resist. so all you have to do is know it when you see it. which is gene­rally a pro­blem ;-)

  5. Viral mar­ke­ting doesn’t work! Tell ever­yone you know!
    Like Huey “Hip to be square” Lewis before them, the Pro­pe­llerheads and Shir­ley have it all wor­ked out already:
    The word is about, there’s something evol­ving,
    wha­te­ver may come, the world keeps revol­ving
    They say the next big thing is here,
    that the revolution’s near,
    but to me it seems quite clear
    that it’s all just a little bit of his­tory repea­ting
    The news­pa­pers shout a new style is gro­wing,
    but it don’t know if it’s coming or going,
    there is fashion, there is fad
    some is good, some is bad
    and the joke is rather sad,
    that its all just a little bit of his­tory repea­ting
    .. and I’ve seen it before
    .. and I’ll see it again
    .. yes I’ve seen it before
    .. just little bits of his­tory repea­ting
    Some peo­ple don’t dance, if they don’t know who’s sin­ging,
    why ask your head, it’s your hips that are swin­ging
    life’s for us to enjoy
    woman, man, girl and boy,
    feel the pain, feel the joy
    aside set the little bits of his­tory repea­ting
    .. just little bits of his­tory repea­ting
    .. and I’ve seen it before
    .. and I’ll see it again
    .. yes I’ve seen it before
    .. just little bits of his­tory repeating