Comments on: Viral Marketing Is Plaguing Viral Marketing http://www.hespos.com/?p=1130 The Vanity Domain With A Purpose Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:38:45 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: The Truth about Viral Marketing - MJS Strategies Limited http://www.hespos.com/?p=1130&cpage=1#comment-170860 The Truth about Viral Marketing - MJS Strategies Limited Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:29:00 +0000 http://www.hespos.com/?p=1130#comment-170860 [...] But this article goes even farther based on what I am sure is a very elaborate computer model. Tom Hespos gives a good overview on why creative shortcomings might be responsible for most viral campaigns [...] [...] But this article goes even farther based on what I am sure is a very elaborate computer model. Tom Hespos gives a good overview on why creative shortcomings might be responsible for most viral campaigns [...]

]]> By: Jetpacks http://www.hespos.com/?p=1130&cpage=1#comment-23635 Jetpacks Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:39:30 +0000 http://www.hespos.com/?p=1130#comment-23635 Well put, Tom. But in a way, it IS the agency's fault if the thing doesn't go viral. And where I think the agency fails is in hoping that they can convert the success of viral to dollars. Creative gets lost in traditional messaging and call to action. Viral is about viewing and laughing for the most part. Give me something crazy or WTF enough and I just might tell my colleagues and friends about it. Keep your brand involvement to a bare minimum - and by that I mean you have to settle for name recognition only - and let me enjoy the piece without a 10% discount if I ACT NOW. Agencies can do these things easily - create wild ideas that get a name out. The recent Ray Ban glasses-catcher-guy comes to mind - and if an agency was behind that one, they did a great job of not telling us about it. Consumers are running from marketing. Chasing after them with the same tired methods isn't going to change a thing. Well put, Tom.

But in a way, it IS the agency’s fault if the thing doesn’t go viral. And where I think the agency fails is in hoping that they can convert the success of viral to dollars. Creative gets lost in traditional messaging and call to action.

Viral is about viewing and laughing for the most part. Give me something crazy or WTF enough and I just might tell my colleagues and friends about it. Keep your brand involvement to a bare minimum – and by that I mean you have to settle for name recognition only – and let me enjoy the piece without a 10% discount if I ACT NOW.

Agencies can do these things easily – create wild ideas that get a name out. The recent Ray Ban glasses-catcher-guy comes to mind – and if an agency was behind that one, they did a great job of not telling us about it.

Consumers are running from marketing. Chasing after them with the same tired methods isn’t going to change a thing.

]]> By: New Media Strategies’ blog focuses on social marketing news, Web 2.0 developments, and original research on online consumer trends from the industry pioneer of word-of-mouth marketing and online business intelligence. » Hypochondria on viral marke http://www.hespos.com/?p=1130&cpage=1#comment-23199 New Media Strategies’ blog focuses on social marketing news, Web 2.0 developments, and original research on online consumer trends from the industry pioneer of word-of-mouth marketing and online business intelligence. » Hypochondria on viral marke Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:00:56 +0000 http://www.hespos.com/?p=1130#comment-23199 [...] Advertising Age’s “What’s Plaguing Viral Marketing” is an interesting counterpoint to the excitement about viral marketing. Based on conclusions of research that discounts the importance of “influencers”, the article presents the idea that marketers are headed in the wrong direction focusing on finding the few people with disproportionate influence that will transform a campaign into a phenomena. It is true that majority of such campaigns fail to catch on, and too many marketers try to catch lightning in a bottle with me-too tactics that have worked for others without considering that what worked for sneakers might not be right for pet care. But this article goes even farther based on what I am sure is a very elaborate computer model. Tom Hespos gives a good overview on why creative shortcomings might be responsible for most viral campaigns falling short, versus concluding that good ol’ mass marketing is what brands should consider (which is oddly enough what the article seems to suggest). I think there is an even bigger hole in this line of thinking, however, and it is based on the assumption that influencers are solely individuals that interact with one community. [...] [...] Advertising Age’s “What’s Plaguing Viral Marketing” is an interesting counterpoint to the excitement about viral marketing. Based on conclusions of research that discounts the importance of “influencers”, the article presents the idea that marketers are headed in the wrong direction focusing on finding the few people with disproportionate influence that will transform a campaign into a phenomena. It is true that majority of such campaigns fail to catch on, and too many marketers try to catch lightning in a bottle with me-too tactics that have worked for others without considering that what worked for sneakers might not be right for pet care. But this article goes even farther based on what I am sure is a very elaborate computer model. Tom Hespos gives a good overview on why creative shortcomings might be responsible for most viral campaigns falling short, versus concluding that good ol’ mass marketing is what brands should consider (which is oddly enough what the article seems to suggest). I think there is an even bigger hole in this line of thinking, however, and it is based on the assumption that influencers are solely individuals that interact with one community. [...]

]]>