Viral is great — but does the infection last?

Viral is great — but does the infection last? via Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work November 1st, 2006 at 02:39

Viral is great — but does the infection last? Halloween Special Happy Halloween Telus, BCE Income Trusts Killed Tuesday!

That’s the right question. With all the writing recently about hesitant advertisers wanting more real data about clicks and traffic, it’s amusing that no one’s mentioned that eyeballs, and ratings for that matter, are just as ephemeral. It’s even easier to surf through 50 tv channels with your remote than the equivalent on your computer. At least with the latter there is a real possibility of converting attention into immediate action.
Vera

Thanks for the comment, Vera. It is interesting that online advertising or marketing gets held to a higher standard than offline — simply because the ability to measure all those different parameters is there.

“Viral” is just another distribution mechanism, isn’t it? It’s the content that really counts. Dove and the mentos/diet coke video became as “big” as they did because the content was really interesting and compelling.

Your comparison with super bowl ads is the right one, I think. Pushing online products and services particularly is much more effective in the online medium. That trend will only grow, I would think, whether it be viral or more traditional online advertising.

[...] Measuring the impact of Viral is more than a numbers game… Via Mathew Ingram’s blog, I read with interest Tony Hung’s interpretation of Dove’s viral “Evolution” campaign – which Adage recently suggested achieved greater ROI than a Superbowl ad – and specifically his thoughts around measurement. However, I tend to disagree with Tony’s assertions. Without question, the ability to directly connect a PR or marketing initiative to a specific business outcome will always be the holy grail. But that isn’t always the full measure of success. Without having the insight of being involved in this campaign, I would suggest that there are multiple motivations to this exercise – donations to the Dove Self-Esteem Fund being only one, albeit perhaps the most important. The value of viral – and particularly now with technologies such as blogs and YouTube – is, in my view, as much about being able to capture - through a single activity – raw audience insights, whether via feedback, comments and blog posts; all of which can serve to further enhance the overall perception of the brand. Without these tools, we might only be able to share our collective admiration for the ad, and/or disgust at what it represents (if that’s how we, in fact, truly feel) with the person sitting next to us on the couch. It filters raw emotion and uncompromising feedback like no survey or focus group ever could, and becomes a powerful gauge – and potential influencer - for overall brand reputation (obviously, reinforced by the collective success of other “Campaign for Real Beauty” initiatives). It even feeds into those who would suggest that this campaign is, in fact, a subtle reverse psychological marketing ploy. But I think that last point is important. Are we to measure this campaign from the basis of individual tactics, or do we need to look at it from the broader perspective of the overall campaign? According to Adage (quoting Todd Tilleman of Unilever): …the emotional response the “Campaign for Real Beauty” has evoked from women has substantially strengthened brand loyalty, noting that two-thirds of brand sales now come from people buying more than one product, up from one-third three years ago. “If you stood only for function, people would assess the brand based only on one category,” he said. While cross-marketing, new-product performance and other tactical appeals have helped build that number too, he said, “I’m convinced the real driver of it is that the brand has increased awareness of this mantra, this mission.” It hasn’t hurt sales, either. Dove has gained share in the past year in four of its five major categories: personal wash (body wash and bar soap), hair care, deodorant and hand-and-body lotion.  Personally, I also wonder what impact the potential for repeat viewing has on a specific audience… This video continually fascinates me. I’ve watched it a number of times now and, as a father of six-year-old twin girls, it has undeniable impact – perhaps even more so than for other audience segments.  So what, then – to use Tony’s phrase? The fact that the article makes no mention of a spike in donations shouldn’t take away from other potential metrics of success - the numbers game being only one…  Published 01 November 2006 13:28 by Brendan Hodgson TrackBack URL for this post:http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/blogs/trackback.aspx?PostID=5650 [...]

Sorry – Eric … viral is not just another distribution channel. Compelling content is only part of the story. And Tony is not talking about most TV advertising when he starts a discussion about the promotional boost to the bottom line. Most TV advertising is about building the brand or market positioning in the consumer’s mind.

While Advertising Age’s article which is basically a CPM comparison matters, particularly when the reach for a cheap(er) online video starts to approach Super Bowl numbers … I don’t think that is the heart of the story either.

What matters most is that the first time I learned about the dove ad was when I read the blog of one of my team members about a month ago. That posting said something to me about my team member and about dove. I have noted the buzz about it over the last couple of weeks, and here it is coming to me from another trusted, credible source … Matt Ingram.

Let’s be honest … size always matters. But if dove’s brand is being placed on the pedestal in my mind, the repetition and general buzz are only one leg. The other two legs are just as big and important in my mind because they come to me more intimately.

That is the real glorious story of viral distribution. My team member and Matt Ingram develop their status as trusted sources, dove is an obvious winner and I am actually sitting here using my time writing this damn comment!

That’s a good point, Michael. Thanks for the comment — and the compliment.

So I think you’re saying that viral marketing is a superior distribution mechanism, Michael? Perhaps, but I still think the content has to be there. No one is interested in sending a typical car ad to their friends or blogging about the latest Ditech commercial, you know?

Interestingly, I first saw the dove video by clicking a link on a social news site (reddit, I think). I do know that I had no idea that the video was associated with dove until I read about it in this very column! What stuck with me was how the process of “beauty” is created for marketing purposes.

I would agree, Eric. I probably never would have paid much attention to this ad campaign, despite the reports about traffic etc., if it hadn’t been for the campaign’s message, which is interesting in part because of what it says about fashion, society, etc. — and which is also probably interesting because it conflicts with the thrust of the industry that Dove is a part of.

I have never really been fond of the term viral, since it describes a successful effect and not the actual discipline of generating attention and buzz. There is no question that a marketing message that goes viral is vastly superior to an interuptive ad – the reason being that people have either sought out the content or been referred by a trusted source and therefore the viewer is in much more receptive mindset to the message because every click is a vote. Whereas in traditional advertising, would anyone pay more attention to an ad because it happens to interupt their favourite show?
Crappy ads or content almost never achieve viral distribution. Generating significant traffic online is a system of natural selection – the videos, sites, news stories or whatever that are most adapted to the environment thrive, those that aren’t are ignored.

Those are good points, Doug. Thanks for the comment. And nice work with the whole rock, paper, scissors thing too :-)

I’ve developed a model to assess the viral potential of a web 2.0 startup. Check it out at my blog.

http://www.nextintuit.com/?p=8

[...] While some of the fundamental marketing questions still need to be answered (do users associate this clip with Dove? Will/Does it influence purchase decisions / loyalty and more…), its phenomenal viral exposure cannot be argued. A powerful demonstration of potential. [...]

there are many people that became good looking when they are change because of make up and it looks good for them at least they see their selves how beautiful they are and they can gain confidence.

Very good article

My experience is that a lot of women love the ads, but men are a lot more lukewarm. Most find the women okay, but nothing spectacular. But seeing as the ads are intended to cater to women who want to loved warts and all, I'd say the whole campaign has been a success (up until recently anyway, as sales figures are starting to slump

They look healthy and attractive. They aren't fat by any means and best of all they are not skinny. Boney ematiated models don't look good and really don't think that most men would think so if their friends weren't around to raz them. I'm telling you, they all look great.
ejaculare

These promote one specific ideal of beauty which, frankly, I'm never going to come close to unless I spend a lot of time and money, and probably get plastic surgery, etc. Instead of encouraging me to celebrate my natural beauty, Dove just wants to tell me the same thing that every other cosmetic company does – if I spend enough time and money I can start to look like what their graphics department created.
ejaculare

I don't know what to say about Viral but I remember I used Narconon in order to prevent pretty much all the infection I could have made in a different situation. I think many more people should follow my example and do that I did and I'm sure there will be less casualties.

I don't know what to say about Viral but I remember I used Narconon in order to prevent pretty much all the infection I could have made in a different situation. I think many more people should follow my example and do that I did and I'm sure there will be less casualties.

Because viruses are tiny and replicate inside cells using the cells' own metabolic functions, there are only a limited number of metabolic functions that antiviral drugs can target. In contrast, bacteria are relatively large organisms, commonly reproduce by themselves outside of cells, and have many metabolic functions that antibacterial drugs (acnee) can target