Creating Seed Networks and Video Content to Go Viral:
Organizational Strategies for Producing Web Video
Aaron Rockett
Capstone Thesis Project
American University
School of Communication
Public Communication Seminar
Supervisor: Prof. Wendy Melillo
Washington, DC
Contact: aaron.rockett@gmail.com
April 23, 2012
1
Abstract
Video as a tool for organizations to reach online communities has never been so
accessible and essential. This paper looks at existing research, viral video definitions,
and the elements of viral videos including creative components of video content, seed
networks, forwarding behavior, and crowdsourcing. Specifically this research provides
a definition for what it means for a video to “go viral,” and analyzes case studies
including the most successful viral video to date, “Kony 2012,” and the Obama 2012
campaign video, “The Road We’ve Traveled.” Findings suggest that success for viral
videos lie in seed networks. While it is impossible to predict which video will “go viral,”
organizations can employ online video strategies that not only increase their video’s
chances of going viral, but that also build online communities and seed networks around
video content that will spread their message and narrative throughout the Web.
2
Introduction:
There are over two billion views a day on YouTube (that’s 60 billion over a
month), which is nearly double the prime-time audience of all three major U.S. broadcast
networks combined. Forty-eight hours of video is uploaded every minute by users. In
fact, “more video is uploaded to YouTube in one month than the 3 major US networks
created in 60 years” (YouTube, 2012, March). There is no doubt that video is now a
major component of the Internet, websites, business marketing plans and has become an
important communication tool that can be accessed by a large majority of computer users.
The media is morphing as we watch on. It is an undulating force that consists of user
generated content and professional productions offering many opportunities and limitless
directions. “Going viral” has become the Holy Grail for any video producer, whether a
seasoned professional or fledgling auteur. Yet, there is no recipe for this illusive prize of
going viral, which has now become a social phenomenon that is starting to receive heavy
scrutiny and research.
Our conceptualization of online video is what some might say, “evolving.”
While most of us inherently understand the model of broadcast television and how it
is structured, it becomes difficult to apply what we know of broadcast standards to the
online world of video. Online video content varies in a wide degree from professionally
produced Web segments to kitten videos. The traditional broadcast television model with
its one-way communication (or gatekeeper model) has in some sense been outmoded, as
anyone with a computer, video camera and editing software can produce content.
The online video world offers a perplexing paradox for video professionals,
especially when a slick video that would air on a primetime broadcast television slot
3
receives a paltry sum of views online, while an amateur produced video of a baby
saying, “Charlie bit my finger,” receives nearly a half billion views on YouTube. It is
safe to say the dynamics are changing, and the seasoned professionals are increasingly
being judged by different standards.
The power of online video has emerged in disparate manifestations from comedic
spoofs to political videos that have changed the nature of a campaign. The “Macaca”
online video led to candidate George Allen losing the Virginia Governor’s race. Online
video pleas for help have emerged after a spate of suicides in the “It Gets Better
Campaign,” that serves as an outlet for gay teens to express their frustrations. Some
videos have even created soaring profits for a businesses like “Will it Blend?” videos,
which have led to a 700 percent increase in profits for Blendtec. Video is being used in
so many different ways online that the shear amount of content has become dizzying.
Breaking through the clutter has become an art unto itself.
Much is written about viral video and its pervasive qualities that spread through
the Internet by way of e-mail, social media platforms, blog links and right into the mass
consciousness. We all know of certain videos that have claimed their piece of online
immortality: “Lazy Sunday,” “Star Wars Kid,” “The Evolution of Dance,” “I got a
Crush…on Obama,” “Double Rainbow,” and the list goes on.
Although the term “viral video” is repeatedly used as a buzz phrase, the term
is so loosely defined that it has limited applications in quantifying what actually is a
viral video. What one person thinks of as a viral video may not fit what another thinks.
Wikipedia’s definition is representative of the broad strokes and ambiguous definitions of
what constitutes viral video. Wikipedia says, “A viral video is one that becomes popular
4
through the process of Internet sharing, typically through video sharing websites, social
media and email.” Is that “sharing” a thousand times or one hundred thousand times
or one million times? The loose definitions lead to a lot of ambiguity especially in the
parameters of studies about viral video. This research will offer a working definition
of “viral video,” which can be applied to Internet videos to better quantify and measure a
videos viral success.
With all that has been researched, written, and said about what it takes to go viral,
the “recipe” is still pure speculation. For example, in a particular Smart Water ad, aptly
called “Jennifer Aniston’s sex tape,” the video tries to employ so-called “qualities” of a
viral video. The video clip, starring Jennifer Aniston, not only uses cameos of YouTube
stars, but also goes down a checklist of all the important ingredients needed for viral
video success:
Aniston: “I have to make a video, apparently, that turns into a virus…”
Internet Boys: “VIRAL! We need the video to go viral.”
Aniston: “Right. Sorry. Viral. Thank you. This is why I have these three sweet
Internet Boys to help me. So, apparently animals…well…animals are huge
online. Do we have animals?
The Internet Boys check that off the list as Aniston pets a puppy. The video goes on
to show Aniston with parrots, babies, acting sexy, and even kicking a man in the groin
because “apparently that’s worth about a hundred thousand hits.” This spoof on “viral
video” is important because it illustrates the fact that not even the pros know what makes
a video go viral, and that chasing viral success can look absurd.
This study will argue that creating online video content to build an audience
5
or network takes time, and that more often than not “viral videos” don’t happen
instantaneously as the term implies. However, this paper will outline how the exponential
growth of Internet video on YouTube and throughout the Web has made online video a
necessary component for organizations and businesses, somewhat like the printing press,
typewriters, computers, and websites for self-publishing. No longer is online video just
a novel feature for professionals or experimental amateurs. Online video has become an
important way to communicate.
Yet the singular focus on viral video has created unrealistic expectations for what
constitutes a successful online video. Quality video content for an organization builds
YouTube subscribers and other online followers that can help promote an organization’s
message. In chasing the often illusive, “viral video,” incredible opportunities and
important benefits of producing Internet content are overlooked.
Attracting an online audience and forming a community around an organization’s
content can be more beneficial in the long run. Organizations need to shift their focus
from creating viral video, to creating authentic online video that adds value to their
organization’s message and narrative. Non-profits, government organizations, and small
businesses have opportunities to produce online video that enhances their mission, cause,
product or service, which all have inherent worth beyond the potential of going viral.
Producing creative online videos that resonate with authenticity and utilizing known
Web strategies increases an organizations reach, viewers, and builds a community.
Importantly, the network that an organization builds around their content can help
facilitate the possibility for a video to “go viral.”
To better understand the components that are involved in the viral success of a
6
video, a literature review was conducted focusing on seven key areas: The definitions
of what constitutes viral video success; the creative components of viral video; the
role of emotions in viral messaging and video; experiential and analytic processing of
emotion driving action; forwarding behavior of online media; seeding online networks
and communities with content; engaging opinion makers and bloggers; crowdsourcing
and user generated content; and case studies of successful viral videos. This research
documents the complex interplays between online communities, psychological behavior,
Internet trends and effective video content to gain a deeper understanding of what leads
to the viral spread of video content.
Literature Review
Going Viral: Three Definitions of Viral Video
Going viral is a standard idea about how communication happens on the web
(Boynton, 2009). There are loose definitions about what “going viral” means. Reevaluating the term means it is necessary to understand the pervading definitions of this
social phenomenon. University of Southern California Communication Professor, Henry
Jenkins says many talk as if things just happened to “go viral” when they have no way to
explain how or why the content has grabbed the public imagination (Usher, 2010). Many
portrayals of “viral media” strip away the agency of the very communities whose spread
of the content they want to explain (Usher, 2010). Jenkins says, “It is a kind of smallpoxsoaked blanket theory of media circulation, in which people become unknowing carriers
of powerful and contagious ideas, which they bring back to their homes and work place,
infecting their friends and family (Usher, 2010).
7
Boynton (2009) identifies three different definitions of “going viral” in analysis
of online video in 2008, all of which do not quite encompass the totality of “going viral,”
but do shed light on the phenomenon.
The number of views is often the first consideration for what constitutes a viral
video. While pointing out that views are an important means of quantifying the viral
nature of a video, the use of the “number of views” remains vague and varies in quantity
(Boynton, 2009). The question arises, what counts as enough views to be considered a
viral video?
Crane and Sornette (2008) researched daily views of almost 5 million videos
and classified them into categories. The classification is based on dynamics (viral video,
quality video, junk video) rather than numbers (Crane, Sornett; 2008), and Boynton’s
(2009) examination of their research found that view averages for video classifications
were between 33,000 and 16, 000 views (Crane and Sornette, 2008).
With these numbers in mind, Boynton’s (2009) first viral video definition states
that, “with mean views of this magnitude one might say that any video viewed more than,
say, 100,000 times was going viral.” Additional studies by TubeMogul (2010) show 53%
of YouTube’s videos have fewer than 500 views. About 30% have less than 100 views.
Meanwhile, just 0.33% have more than 1 million views. Another consideration is the
rate at which a video receives its views. Does it matter if a video receives a 100,000 in a
week, while another receives 100,000 views over four years?
The 100,000 view benchmark presented as what constitutes a viral video is
open for debate by even Boynton (2009), who suggests that a viral video may just be
what “seems like a lot of views” to an individual. In other words, when it comes to the
8
numbers, you know a viral video when you see it (Albrecht, 2008).
Boynton’s (2009) second “going viral” definition relates to the epidemiological
function of going viral. In this epidemic analogy of viral video there is no single source
from which all persons are “infected.” It starts with a few individuals who have viewed
the video who pass it on until those who have seen the video start coming into contact
with others, which continues until the process runs its course (Boynton; 2009). While this
is a simple version of explaining viral video from the biological process of an epidemic,
one might argue that the most successful viral videos are on the level of a pandemic,
which transcend communities, countries and continents.
The epidemic analogy of a viral video gives rise to levels of “epidemic potency”
of a video. Whether one video reaches 25,000 people, while another reaches 25,000,000
speaks to the potency or epidemic value of each viral video. Both videos spread virally,
however one had factors that drove its epidemic potency to reach far more people. It is
simply the case of being more viral than the other.
Boynton’s (2009) third definition of viral video takes the shape of the sigmoid
curve. The number of people that are infected or rather view the video early are small,
but grow very quickly until all individuals available have viewed the video, and the
process runs its course (Boynton; 2009). This S-curve, although not on the mind of a
YouTube viewer, is what scientists are taught as a simple version of the epidemic process
(Arneson, 2006).
The S-Curve is repeated over and over again in viral videos. Shamma et. al (2011)
have shown in a study that the rate at which a video is viewed and shared (rate of daily
views) online often dictates and provides predictive indicators of a video’s viral success.
9
The ability to gain a viewership of thousands in a very short period of time allows some
videos to take on a viral nature and gain tens of millions of views, while other videos
never receive more than scant viewing (Shamma et. al; 2011).
The cumulative views of a viral video over time typically take the form of an Scurve—a curve that rises slowly at first, then much faster after reaching some threshold
(a viral take-off), and finally slows down as a saturation level is approached (Carey and
Elton, 2010). The same S-curve is used to explain the Law of Diffusion and pertains
directly to understanding viral video.
(Rogers, 1995)
(Rogers, 1962)
Diffusion is defined as the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system (Rogers,
1994). Diffusion includes both the planned and the spontaneous spread of new ideas
(Rogers, 1994). Within this process there are five stages of innovation adopters: (1)
innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, (5) laggards (Rogers,
1994). Each stage of adopter fits on the S-curve. An innovation’s “take-off” happens
between the stages of “early adopters” and “early majority.” When applying the S-curve
10
to viral video the crucial question is the time it takes to move from the upload of a video
to the threshold where rapid views take place (Carey and Elton, 2010). Many videos
fail to get enough views to reach a point where rapid growth occurs, or on the S-curve
where the interaction between the “early adopters” and the “early majority” takes place
launching the video virally.
Though Boynton (2009) outlines three pervading definitions of what it means
to “go viral,” he posits that it is video content that is driving the views. This leads
the discussion to the creative aspects of videos, sharing behavior of viewers, and the
participatory culture of the Internet that drive the views of video.
Creative Components of Viral Video
You have just 10 seconds to capture your online viewer, which means you better
save the best stuff for the first few seconds and grab hold of your audience. Statistics by
Visible Measures (2010) illustrate just how fickle online viewers can be:
People watching television tend to be sitting on comfy sofas with a dinner tray
on their lap. Changing to another channel is an argument with the family and
a reach for the remote control. In online video, your viewer’s mouse is already
in their hand – and the statistics show that 20 percent of viewers (on average)
drop off after just 10 seconds. That means that if your video gets one-million
hits, 200,000 of them didn’t see past the first 10 seconds (Westbrook, 2012,
January 24).
That is a stark illustration of the reality of Internet video which has fed into the countless
recipes all trying to pinpoint the “important determinants” for a viral video. These recipes
often include: two to three word title length, short run-time, laughter, element of surprise,
element of irony, music quality, talent and the list goes on. However, identifying precise
11
elements in the creative realm that is at the mercy of a fickle, subjective and disparate
online audience can be summed up as, daunting. Still, television advertising and its short
run-times and unpredictable audiences offer perspective.
Southgate, Westoby and Page (2010) found to a large extent that the same ‘rules’
of successful TV advertising can also be applied to viral video. Creative drivers of
enjoyment, involvement and branding “positively predict online viral viewing volume,”
with involvement and enjoyment the more important measures (Southgate et al.; 2010).
Additionally, the ‘buzz’ around a video can be enhanced by whether it is “Laugh-outloud funny, Edgy, Gripping or Sexy” (Southgate et al.; 2010). Creativity, whether it’s on
broadcast TV or in the online medium, is still creativity.
Additionally, the use of celebrities is also a positive indicator for successful
viral videos. While studies have found that the use of celebrities are no guarantee of
advertising success on broadcast television (Millward Brown Knowledge Point 2007a),
in the online medium where there is a glut of content the presence of celebrities are
often important to break through the clutter. Southgate et al. (2010) found that celebrity
popularity positively predicts online viral viewing volume, and the evidence is seen
in celebrity music and sports videos being amongst the most viewed of all time on
YouTube.
Non-profit groups are hiring YouTube stars to promote their causes. Smart Power,
a non-profit marketing firm promoting clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency
hired Amber Lee Ettinger, or known better as “Obama Girl.” Made famous by the
YouTube video, “I Got a Crush on Obama,” Ettinger wrote and performed a music video
for Smart Power, “Want Obama Girl? Save Your Energy!” The video currently has over
12
642,000 views. This is an example of a how a non-profit organization is utilizing the “star
power” of an Internet celebrity.
Southgate et al. (2010) showed that more successful online videos within their
data set contained very prominent music. Millward Brown had previously shown that
enjoyable music can boost ad response, most likely because music adds considerably
to the viewing experience (Millward Brown Knowledge Point 2008). Music is widely
known to evoke emotions in viewers of television shows and movies, and this also goes
for the Web.
Emotion may be one of the keys to viral video success. Further studies are tapping
into the deeper constructs of effective online videos, showing the element of surprise
in addition to other emotions leads to “going viral” (Dobele, Lindgreen, Beverland,
Banhamme, van Wijk; 2007). A Millward Brown pre-test showed similar results from
a detailed emotional response measure, and the initial analysis of the data suggests that
surprise and excitement may be particularly strong drivers of viral success (Southgate et
al.; 2010).
Viral Messages Connect Emotionally
In the online medium connecting with a viewer quickly and evoking an emotional
response are shown to be indicators leading to the viral spread of video. Dobele et al.
(2007) found in their research a distinct relationship between emotion and forwarding
behavior for a viral message. Forwarding of a message on the Internet is a form of peerto-peer recommendation, which increases the credibility of a message or video (Dobele et
al., 2007). The more that a message is forwarded to another person increases the chance
13
that it can be viewed by an exponential number of people, creating a “viral” scenario for
the message. When a viral message connects emotionally enough with a person there
is a higher likelihood they will pass it along to friends, family and colleagues (Dobele
et al., 2007). According to Dobele et al. (2007), there must be something uniquely
powerful about the message, “something that encourages would-be advocates to pass it
on.” Understanding the reasons behind a recipient’s intention to forward informs creative
choices to optimize a video for online viewing.
Surprise is the dominant emotion in successful viral campaigns; it “must be
achieved” (Dobele et al., 2007). In nine viral campaigns studied by Dobele et al. (2007),
the emotion of “surprise was always expressed” with the addition of at least one of the
other five emotions (joy, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust).
Thales Teixeira (2012) also reported in the Harvard Business Journal: “After
analyzing thousands of reactions to many ads, second by second, and tracking exactly
when people stop watching, we found that keeping viewers involved depends in large
part on two emotions: joy and surprise.” Teixeira (2012) found that to maximize
viewership, it’s important to generate at least one of these responses early on. Advertisers
and filmmakers in general have always constructed narratives that escalate toward a
dramatic climax or a surprise ending (Teixeira, 2012). Though these commercials may
have worked on TV decades ago, today’s online viewers need to be “hooked in the
opening seconds” (Teixeira, 2012).
Munnich, Ranney, and Song (2007) found in their research that surprise helps
make things more memorable. Surprise leads to a “reexamination of one’s assumptions,
and could ultimately lead to a greater coherence across one’s network of beliefs”
14
(Munnich et al., 2007). This becomes increasingly important when it comes to viral video
and breaking through the noise and clutter of the Web. Piaget (1977) argued that highly
surprising information leads to accommodative change, whereas “information that is
minimally surprising leads to assimilation into extant schemas” (Munnich et al., 2007).
Put simply, you remember and consider what surprises you. Munnich et al. (2007) found
that surprising outcomes directed students’ attention to beliefs that needed revision,
leading to deeper understandings.
Surprise provokes us to restructure our world-views so that we are not surprised
again (Munnich et al., 2007). Surprise is not jarring enough that we avoid it, but it
is just jarring enough for us to redirect our attention and reorganize our conceptual
understandings (Munnich et al., 2007). If a viral video causes a person to re-evaluate their
world-view, they are more likely to share the video with others.
However, Dobele et al. (2007) and Teixeira (2012) reiterated that the viral
campaigns they studied were successful because surprise was accompanied with another
emotion. Viral messages that are based around joy elicit happiness and delight; the
emotion of sadness results in feelings of distress or being downhearted; anger was found
to be good for social causes or to put pressure on social groups; fear is an emotion that
can encourage action, especially when it results in outrage; and lastly disgust has a very
low intensity and is felt by a person when they believe something is “harming their soul”
(Dobele et al., 2007).
Teixeira (2012) writes that creating a video with an “emotional roller coaster” is
critical to keeping viewers from clicking off the video:
Viewers are most likely to continue watching a video ad if they experience
emotional ups and downs. This fits with psychological-research findings about
15
human adaptability. When we come into a warm home on a cold winter day,
or when we receive a pay raise, we experience pleasure, but the feeling is
transitory; the novelty soon wears off. So advertisers need to briefly terminate
viewers’ feelings of joy or surprise and then quickly restore them, creating
an emotional roller coaster—much the way a movie generates suspense by
alternating tension and relief.
Successful viral messages are dependent on capturing the imagination and
emotions of the recipient, which surprise is an important factor, but emotion alone
doesn’t guarantee viral success (Dobele et al., 2007). To better understand the constructs
of emotion and how they affect a person’s actions, this research looks at Slovic’s
(2007) discussion of experiential and analytic processing and the role of emotion on a
person’s actions and judgment. Slovic’s (2007) One versus Many theoretical framework
is instructive for creating video messages that connect with viewers leading them to
forwarding behavior.
Experiential and Analytic Processing- Emotion Drives Action
Emotions and feelings play an important role in guiding a person’s decisionmaking behavior. “The most basic form of feeling is affect, the sense (not necessarily
conscious) that something is good or bad,” writes Slovic (2007). These affective
responses occur “rapidly and automatically” (Slovic, 2007). We quickly associate
feelings with words like “treasure” or the word “hate,” or in the case of video, how the
images make us feel (Slovic, 2007). The importance of affect in conveying meaning
upon information and motivating behavior is well documented in psychology literature
(Slovic, 2007). Plainly stated, “without affect, information lacks meaning” (Slovic,
2007).
16
The central role of affect is characterized in the System 1 and System 2 model,
which compares the dual-process theories of thinking (Slovic, 2007). System 1 deals
with affect and experiential processing, or emotion, while System 2 looks at analytic
processing, or judgment. While analysis is important in the decision-making process, it is
easier to rely on affect and emotion because it is often quicker, easier, and more efficient
to navigate a complex and dangerous world (Slovic, 2007). Affect has a direct and
primary role in motivating behavior (Slovic, 2007). In relation to viral video, affect could
be that emotion that drives you to forward the video to family, friends, and colleagues
(Dobele et al., 2007).
Not only is emotion a chief driver in the forwarding of a video, but Slovic’s
analysis points out that how imagery is presented is crucial to how emotions are
stimulated, which has large implications for producing videos. “Underlying the role
of affect in the experiential system is the importance of images, to which positive or
negative feelings become attached,” states Slovic (2007). “Imagery” plus “Attention”
lead to “Feeling,” which invokes “action” (Slovic, 2007). Images are the key to
conveying affect and meaning, and some imagery is more powerful than others (Slovic,
2007).
Slovic’s (2007) theory of One versus Many discusses the powerful impact of
imagery of just one individual versus imagery of many people. Research shows that
attention is greater for images of individuals and loses focus and intensity when targeted
at groups of people (Hamilton and Sherman, 1996; Susskind, Maurer, Thakker, Hamilton,
and Sherman, 1999). Emotional responses are most powerful and effective when the
image is of just one human face rather than many, which has a more numbing or tuning
17
out effect (Slovic, 2007). Slovics research plays an important role when considering the
data that Web videos have just 10 seconds to capture the attention of a viewer.
Producing videos containing celebrities, emotional elements such as surprise, and
evocative music are all steps to creating effective video content for an online audience.
However, reaching online communities, blogs and other online portals to generate buzz
and spur forwarding behavior is an entirely separate area of research and understanding
for the “viral video” phenomenon. The latest research on the viral spread of media shows
that it is an important key and evolving rapidly.
Spreading the Message: A Further look at Forwarding Behavior of Viewers
USC Professor, Henry Jenkins says, “If it doesn’t spread, it’s dead” (Usher,
2010). Spreadable media travels across media platforms partly because people take it
in their own hands and share it with their social networks (Usher, 2010). In Usher’s
interview with Jenkins it is pointed out that the widespread circulation of media content
through the conscious actions of disparate networks of viewer/participants promotes
greater visibility and awareness as the video travels in unpredicted directions and
encounters people who are potentially interested in further engagements with the people
who produced it (Usher, 2010).
YouTube videos spread well because they allow users to embed them on their
blogs and Facebook profiles (Usher, 2010). The embedded video’s interface makes it
easy to follow it back to its original page on YouTube (Usher, 2010). “It is content which
is designed to be spread,” says Jenkins (Usher, 2010). Those who create spreadable
content and video platforms actively encourage viewers to spread their materials, often
18
directly “courting them as participants in the process of distribution” (Usher, 2010).
Jenkins’ research shows that social media and the spread of a viral video is
partly about the value gained from the grassroots spread of video and other media and
how the media industry is being “reconfigured in order to accept the help of grassroots
intermediaries who help expand their reach to the public” (Usher, 2010). Jenkins points
out that there is a rejection of the “the magic black box” or television model where the
flow of media comes across one device in favor of the flow of media and video across
multiple media channels (Usher, 2010). The rise of iMacs, iPhones, iPads, iPods and
the rest of the devices is certainly evidence of such a shift. But Jenkins takes the point
further, “We live at a moment where every story, image, or bit of information will
travel across every available media platform either through decisions made in corporate
boardrooms or decisions made in consumers’ living rooms.”
Forwarding by Viewers
Jenkins’ work starts from the premise that people are making conscious decisions
to aid the circulation of certain content because they see it as a meaningful contribution
to their ongoing conversations, “a gift which they can share with people they care about”
(Usher, 2010).
Teixeira (2012) finds two common traits in people who forward on media:
Extroversion and egocentricity. Egocentric people are looking to increase their social
standing, writes Teixeira in the Harvard Business Journal: “Their primary aim in posting
or e-mailing an ad link isn’t to make others joyful; it’s to display their own taste, media
savvy, and connectedness” (Teixeira, 2012).
19
Huang, Chen, and Wang (2012) also examine the factors influencing the intention
to forward short Internet videos. The key to spreading online electronic content lies
in an individual recipient’s intention to forward messages to others (Huang, Lin, and
Lin; 2009). With 75 percent of online video viewers having received links to online
videos via e-mail or instant messages, understanding the past history and formation of
video forwarding intention “constitutes a core issue in the study of online video sharing
behaviors” (Huang et al., 2012; Madden, 2007).
Huang et al. (2012) found that intention derives from two factors: video content
quality and empathy. Forwarding intention is generated only when the video content is
interesting enough (Huang et al.; 2012). Empathy is related to the relationship between
the forwarder and the recipient (Huang et al.; 2012). Huang et al. (2012) found that
people usually try to avoid negative feedback from the recipient, and forwarding
intention is generated only when the forwarder thinks the video will be of interest to the
recipient (Huang et al.; 2012). In other words, people evaluate the probable benefits
including obtaining self- enhancement, strengthening relationships, and helping others.
Kirby and Marsden (2006) also argue that to enable a message to become ‘viral’,
it needs to contain something valuable to those who receive it—in other words, a
message that is able to involve the recipient or provide an incentive for them to forward
it.
Harvey, Stewart, and Ewing (2011) found that the very act of forwarding a viral
message is an implicit endorsement of the content and credibility of the message. But
the bulk of their research looked at the strength of ties between people and measured
the amount of online communication across the tie in order to understand the likelihood
20
of forwarding a YouTube video between a tie (Harvey et al.; 2011). The study found,
counter intuitively, that the weaker tie between people increased the likelihood of
forwarding videos, and less likely to forward across stronger ties (Harvey et al.; 2011).
A possible explanation is that an individual “may not forward to a close friend in order to
avoid being deemed an online ‘pest’” (Harvey et al.; 2011). Alternatively, a person may
be less discriminating about message quality when forwarding a viral video to friends or
contacts they are not as close (Harvey et al.; 2011). Additionally, if friends communicate
often online there was greater chance that a YouTube video would be forwarded (Harvey
et al.; 2011).
Harvey et al. (2011) point out that Dobele et al. (2007) “fail to distinguish”
between the sender and recipient’s involvement when arguing that a viral video’s ability
to evoke an emotion increases forwarding behavior. They note that Kibby (2005) found
that a viral message might be forwarded if the sender perceives that the viral message
could be of interest to the potential recipient, regardless if it evokes an emotion in the
sender (Harvey et al.; 2011). This conclusion also finds merit in research by Huang et
al. (2012) that showed people evaluate the benefits for not only themselves, but also the
recipient of the viral video.
Seeding:
Liu-Thompkins’ (2011) research found that a need for a “big seed” strategy
(using many seed viewers) depends on the video’s quality. A seeding strategy involves
determining how many initial viewers (seeds) to disseminate a video and what type of
viewers to choose as seeds (Liu-Thompkins, 2011). As these seed viewers are
21
responsible for the initial dissemination of the viral message to other fellow
viewers, “selecting the right targets as seeds can have a significant impact on later rounds
of the viral diffusion process” of the video (Bampo, et al., 2008; Watts and Peretti, 2007).
An effective video should break through the clutter and viewer indifference to encourage
further pass-along of the message (Liu-Thomkins, 2011).
When considering target seeds understanding what specific characteristics of a
video connect for specific viewers needs to be understood. One example is researchers
have found female and younger consumers to exert more influence on their targets and to
be more susceptible to viral influences than male and older consumers (Katona, et al.,
2011; Trusov, et al., 2010). From a motivational standpoint, research has found altruism
to drive message sharing (Ho and Dempsey, 2010; Phelps, et al., 2010).
As mentioned in the earlier section, “Forwarding by Viewers,” personal ties are
very important for spreading messages and pertain directly to seeding. “Just like birds of
a feather flock together, in human relationships, researchers have found a tendency for
individuals to connect with others that are similar to them,” a phenomenon called
homophily (Mcpeherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook, 2001; Liu-Thompkins, 2011).
Homophily happens online where users with similar backgrounds and tastes are likely to
seek out and consume similar content (Liu-Thompkins, 2011). Viewers of a
homophilieus network are motivated to pass on a video, “either due to personal interest in
the content topic or due to group norm” (Liu-Thompkins, 2011).
However, a video can find that its online spread may be limited by a particular
seed network because of the individuals’ similarities, keeping the video stuck in the
circle of similar individuals (Liu-Thompkins, 2011). This prevents the video from
22
reaching a larger, more diverse “universe” of viewers (Brown and Reingen, 1987). From
this perspective, homophily begins to have it’s drawbacks for a viral video.
Liu-Thompkins’ (2011) research found that there is a “sweet spot” for seed
viewers to promote the viral spread of a video. “When seed consumers share too few or
too many common interests, diffusion outcome is not optimal. Instead, a moderately
heterogeneous group of consumers can best increase the reach of a viral message to more
diverse consumer populations” (Liu-Thompkins, 2011).
Results showed that it is best to share a video with seed viewers that have a strong
tie with the message originator (Liu-Thompkins, 2011). Viewers are strongly influenced
by the message originator, which increases the probability that the message will be
passed along to further waves of consumers (Liu-Thompkins, 2011). This point was
demonstrated in a viral video campaign by Honda Motor Co., who created a two-minute
video about their Accord model car (Dobele et al., 2007). Honda emailed the video to
only 500 employees, and three years later after the video was forwarded on the Web, it
had been viewed by 4.5 million people (Dobele et al., 2007). Honda sent their video to
their employees who had a strong tie with them, and they forwarded the video to others
that would also likely respond to the video favorably (Dobele et al., 2007). Honda
utilized seed viewers (in this case employees) to forward the video onto others, which led
to a viral video.
Seeding videos through large networks like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and
other social media avenues is recognized as a powerful way to launch a viral video.
YouTube has a system of “subscribers” where viewers can choose to receive automatic
updates to new video uploads by channels they choose to subscribe. Twitter has a system
23
of “followers” where individual Twitter account holders receive 140 character messages
in their Twitter feed from each person they follow. Facebook has a system of “friends”
and “likes” where an individual with a Facebook account receives “status updates” from
all their Facebook friends as well as organizations’ pages that they’ve “liked.” These
social media portals provide instant access to large seed networks of people and a
platform to disseminate information and video content.
Successful YouTube producers and stars like Ettinger, the “Obama Girl,” have
large followings (seed viewers) on YouTube. The YouTube channel, Barely Political,
where Ettinger was launched into fame, has 1,791,577 people who have subscribed.
Every time Barely Political uploads a video each subscriber receives a notice to watch it.
That is a very effective way to seed their videos, and has led to over 1.25 billion views
for their videos. It is no wonder non-profits like Smart Power hire YouTube stars like
Ettinger to tap into their followers and subscribers. These are instant seed networks.
Additionally, studies by TubeMogul (2011) show that paid media, another way to
tap into seed networks, is increasingly necessary to “go viral.” The study shows that
even getting a video featured on YouTube’s homepage yields fewer views than it use to,
down 28.2% from the same measurement conducted in 2008 (TubeMogul, 2011). The
result, and TubeMogul’s recommendation, is that paid media is now necessary to get
videos watched, even in viral campaigns.
Hampp (2011) suggests organizations can reach large amount of seed viewers
that are already part of online networks through paid placements. One million paid views
on “cherry-picked” key sites like Metacafe and Daily Motion can be bought for $100,000
(Hampp, 2011). According to Sharethrough CEO, Dan Greenberg, “if you buy 1 million
24
views, sometimes the content is so compelling you maximize the sharing and it turns into
4 million or 5 million views” (Hampp, 2011).
Engaging the Online Community, Opinion Makers and Bloggers
Pervading thought is that the mass media forces attention to certain issues, and
sets the public agenda (Lang and Lang, 1981). The information flowing in interpersonal
communication channels is primarily relayed from, and based upon, mass media news
coverage (McCombs and Shaw, 1972). They are constantly presenting tidbits “suggesting
what individuals in the mass should think about, know about, have feelings about” (Lang
et al., 1981).
The media has often been looked to as opinion leaders on any given topic.
Opinion leaders have important traits and behaviors of influence that can be divided into
a few dimensions (Katz, 1957):
Who one is—This includes certain personality characteristics or values held by the
individual;
What one knows—This includes the degree of knowledge and expertise that one has
about a particular issue or product; and
Whom one knows—This includes the number of contacts one has as part of their
circle of friends and acquaintances.
However, audiences more fragmented and difficult to reach today, and they
are becoming increasingly skeptical of news, and distrustful of advertising, preferring
recommendations from friends, family, coworkers, and peers (Keller and Berry, 2003).
According to the Harvard Business Review, “companies are already placing ads on the
pages of Facebook users who frequently post links and are reaching out to Twitterers
who have large followings. The ability to find these archetypal sharers will become just
25
as important as the ability to reach certain demographic groups has traditionally been”
(Teixeira, 2012). Bloggers are becoming the powerful opinion leaders in the digital
world.
Increasingly journalists rely on bloggers to act as “diggers and aggregators of
information” and “conduits of public opinion” (Wallsten, 2010). Wallsten’s (2010)
research found that the online buzz for video created by bloggers, and the rapid number
of blogger chatter and links that translated into video views resulted in capturing the
mainstream media’s attention. Viral videos often benefit from rich get richer dynamic
where the more popular they become in the “blogosphere,” the more attention and views
they attract (Shamma et. al., 2011). Wallsten’s (2011) findings make a strong case that
video makers should cater to the interests of bloggers if they want their videos to attract a
large audience in both the online and offline worlds.
Evidence appears that journalists carefully track the popularity of content on sites
such as YouTube, with large viewership a prerequisite, in order to decide what videos
they should discuss (Wallsten, 2011). Meanwhile, bloggers tend to base their decisions
about what to link to and talk about based on other considerations like what the video
is saying or portraying. Because of this, Wallsten (2011) concludes that the interest of
bloggers is a central factor in explaining the rise, spread, and decline of viral videos.
A blogger’s opinion leader status in the digital landscape reaches a large network of
viewers with strong ties to the blogger that have similar interests who will listen to their
recommendations and watch their video suggestions. The more bloggers link to and
discuss a specific video, the more online networks a video is able to transverse and the
more views it will receive. On the other hand, journalists will likely hold back rather than
26
be leaders in the process of creating viral videos, but will report on those videos that have
received a large online audience (Wallsten, 2011). Journalists’ coverage in respected
publications or media outlets of a successful viral video offers important legitimacy and
validation and often increases its viral success.
Crowdsourcing - Participatory Interaction and User Generated Content
More and more, video is now seen as a way to develop a large online audience
and “crowdsource,” or draw on the creative power of the crowd. Record companies have
started making their artists’ music videos available to users as part of a relationship, or
even a “conversation” to be initiated, sustained, and maintained (Boulaire, Hervet and
Graf; 2010).
Two-way participation and communication engendered in User Generated
Content (USG) from a marketing strategy standpoint cultivates this force encouraging
creativity by turning a brand, campaign, or cause into a “play space” or game that
transcends the video itself (Boulaire et al., 2010). As the old saying goes, “Imitation is
the highest form of flattery.”
The imitation of YouTube videos also means explosive viewership that allows for
videos to cross network or group divides and reach new potential viewers. Moreover, the
remakes of videos are also copied and remade by communities, in some cases over 1,000
times (Boulaire et al., 2010). Every time a video is remade, retooled, spoofed, or imitated,
the original video is revisited and viewed leading to additional and explosive viral spread.
Literature on Successful Viral Video Case Studies
27
Literature on previous case studies of the “Will it Blend?” video campaign and the “Yes
We Can” political music video offer insight into what constitutes successful viral video
content, and reasons behind their success.
“Will it Blend?”
Blendtec’s viral video campaign, “Will it Blend?” gave the company worldwide
brand recognition and sales resulting in huge profits. With 119 videos, Blendtec’s retail
sales are up a reported 700 percent (Briggs, 2009). Their YouTube site has 441,000
subscribers, and 190,500,000 video views. The success of the viral videos have led to
coverage from major media outlets like The Today Show, The Tonight Show, The
History Channel, The Wall Street Journal and many others (Briggs, 2009).
Blendtec’s “Will it Blend?” series started when their Marketing Director George
Wright heard that CEO Tom Dickson and his R&D team had the practice of blending up
wooden boards to test the blender’s toughness (Briggs, 2009). Wright thought it would be
an interesting idea to shoot video of the operation and post it on the Internet (Briggs,
2009).
Since that first video they uploaded, Blendtec began blending a variety of items
including marbles, a garden rake, a McDonalds Extra Value Meal, a Rotisserie Chicken,
and many other items that have cultural value. Dickson stars in the videos wearing a
white lab coat. Within five days of the first posting on YouTube, the videos had received
some six million YouTube views (Briggs, 2009). To further spread the videos Blendtec
began to purchase advertising with Google and Yahoo!, and chose YouTube tags to bring
the largest number of search engine hits (Briggs, 2009).
28
The simplicity and authentic nature of the “Will it Blend?” viral video campaign
is striking. Blendtec invested $100 in supplies and tapped their CEO, Dickson to present
the videos (Briggs, 2009). Using their in-house videographer they filmed their short
videos in the company break room, now remodeled to look like a cross between a smalltime game show and an infomercial set (Briggs, 2009). Yet, the authentic and
unassuming presentation by Dickson in showcasing their Blender in the “Will it Blend?”
videos offers important lessons to how companies and organizations can present their
own products and materials. Authenticity is key.
Briggs (2009) also points to Blendtec’s video success to engaging “popular
culture intertextuality,” which boils down to one piece of media drawing meaning from
another. One might think of the TV show, “The Simpsons’ myriad of intertextual
references to movie stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom and Jerry,” says Briggs
(2009). Blendtec capitalizes on intertextuality throughout their campaign. The “Will it
Blend?” campaign blends popular items like Nike shoes, Apple iPhone, a Rubiks Cube,
diamonds, video games and many more. Briggs (2009) says the “Will it Blend?”
videos, “have created a strong web of intertextual references which make the videos a
little edgy, but also likely to catch the attention of the various sub-communities of fans of
each of the products.”
To date the most popular “Will it Blend?” videos are the blending of an iPad
that received over 13,000,000 views, and the blending of an iPhone that received over
10,000,000 views. Each of the 119 videos runtime is between under a minute to about
3:50, with the average video running about 1:40.
To further promote fan engagement Blendtec reached out to viewers for
29
suggestions. Flooded with ideas, Blendtec has created a facebook fan page that receives
suggestions around the clock. Dickson says, “We look at suggestions from our fans and
for hot new products” (Crowell, 2011). On the fan page people suggest that Blendtec
blend a “smoothie,” a “battery,” “Chuck Norris,” a “blender,” and much more. It has
even inspired other fans to post copycat videos. One fan writes, “Hey “Will it Blend?,”
you have inspired us. In your honor, this video streams for you.”
The amount of exposure that the viral videos have provided Blendtec products
have been “worth millions” according to Dickson (Crowell, 2011). Dickson says of viral
video, “Create videos that people will want to share. The only reason ‘Will it Blend?’ has
been successful is because our fans are sharing it.”
Blendtec’s 441,000 subscribers offer an important audience for seeding future
videos. Additionally, their Facebook community and paid advertising garners additional
viewers. It’s much easier for any video they post now to reach a large audience and
even go viral. Although the viral nature of each of their videos vary, many “Will it
Blend?” videos having over five million views after any initial seeding which indicates a
considerable viral spread.
The important lessons from Blendtec are that companies can become content
producers instead of merely content interrupters (Briggs, 2009). Through simple,
authentic video content that exemplifies their blender products Blendtec was able to
engage audiences on the Web and reach millions of viewers that otherwise would have
never heard of their product. The buzz created both mainstream media coverage, and
more importantly an increase in profits by 700 percent. Blendtec says of their viral
videos: “…now we’re finding that with the new tools…companies can become content
30
producers through free distribution channels. The world is now open for people to put out
wonderful, fun, engaging messages, instead of interrupting other people’s schedules
through advertising” (Briggs, 2009).
“Yes We Can”
The “Yes We Can” music video produced by successful music entertainer,
will.i.am, puts a Barack Obama campaign speech to music. The video, in support of
Obama’s 2008 presidential bid, features a cadre of some of Hollywood’s biggest stars
including Scarlet Johansson, former NBA basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, musical
entertainer John Legend and many others. Inter-cut with footage of Obama and will.i.am,
the video benefits from star power and a powerful message and musical beat that strikes a
chord emotionally. It was an instrumental video in the 2008 United States Presidential
campaigns, and added to the importance politicians and pundits placed on the power of
YouTube videos. The “Yes We Can” video, which runs 4:30, has nearly 24,000,000
views, and there are millions of additional views from the video being re-uploaded by
others.
It’s clear that the “Yes We Can” viral video benefits from celebrity power, but
also from a complex set of relationships and multi-directional interplay between
bloggers, Internet users, Obama campaign statements, and mainstream media’s coverage
(Wallsten, 2011).
Wallsten’s (2011) research shows that blogs were key to the viral success of
the “Yes We Can” video. The music video received over 1,000 blogger links as soon
as it was posted on YouTube February 2, 2008 (Wallsten, 2011). The number of blog
31
links to the video remained high over the next two days and then started falling off
dramatically (Wallsten, 2011). The “Yes We Can” viral video took off in the patterned Scurve discussed in the Law of Diffusion. The videos decline in views correlated directly
with the declining number of blog links and blog discussion (Wallsten, 2011). After the
fourth day the video was posted, the daily blog posts linking to the video never exceeded
300 (Wallsten, 2011). Yet, the online buzz created by bloggers, the additional support of
the Obama campaign, and the increasing amount of video views was enough to capture
the mainstream media’s attention, which further launched the video to viral success
(Wallsten, 2011).
The Obama campaign was also critical in promoting the video’s viral success
through campaign e-mails and posted messages on their official blog encouraging people
to view the video (Wallsten, 2011). Forrester Research shows that e-mails with videos
have a two to three time higher click-through-rate than e-mails without video.
The Obama campaign’s support of the video also speaks to the importance of
mutually beneficial relationships in promoting online videos. In this case, the campaign
was an important factor in legitimizing the video and raising a user-generated video from
being merely part of the white noise on the Internet to a viral video sensation (Wallsten,
2011). It helps that the video was filled with celebrities and the content itself was
emotionally engaging spurring viewers to share it with others, but the Obama campaign’s
stated support for the video was in part responsible for the video’s validation and its viral
spread.
Bloggers and blog discussion produced a watershed of views and news coverage
(Wallsten, 2011). Blogs drove Internet audiences to the “Yes We Can” video. Wallsten’s
32
(2011) findings show that the large number of views attracted by the Internet audiences
was an important factor for the “Yes We Can” video to find traction beyond the Internet.
Because of the blogosphere’s influence in reaching audiences quickly, there is a large
body of research showing that bloggers can have a crucial impact on what the media
chooses to cover (Wallsten, 2011). The additional coverage of the “Yes We Can” video
by the mainstream media created further discussion of the video’s ideas in the general
public, as well as leading to more viewership.
However, Wallsten finds no evidence that mainstream media reports contributed
to the video going viral. Instead Wallsten (2011) points to bloggers as a central factor in
explaining the rise, spread, and decline of the “Yes We Can” viral video.
The popularity of the “Yes We Can” viral video can also be seen in the number of
of parodies on the Internet and in the mainstream media that were inspired. Spoof
songs, “john.he.is” and “No You Can’t” were widely popular. “john.he.is” has over 2
million views. Additionally, mainstream network shows had their own parodies, like
MADtv with its segment called “Yes I can,” about the late North Korean leader Kim
Jong-ll. Such parodies and spoofs speak to the viral spread of the “Yes We Can” video,
but also with each parody studies show there is an increase in the number of views of the
original video.
Much has been written about the impact of celebrities in videos and advertising.
There is no doubt that celebrities in the “Yes We Can” video contributed to the attention
it received, however the high quality and creativity of the content was also important for
its viral spread. Arguably the Obama campaign would not have drawn attention to the
video had the message or content in the video not added to their election narrative, as
33
they crafted their successful 2008 presidential bid. As research has shown, people put
their credibility on the line when they recommend or forward Internet content like
videos, which is especially true for campaigns or organizations. In the same light,
bloggers also put their reputation on the line when they write or promote content.
Mainstream media, to a larger extent, is able to use the blogosphere to take the public’s
temperature on what’s popular and trending on YouTube and Twitter.
The “Yes We Can” viral video was able to harness a poignantly crafted music
video with star power, support of the Obama campaign, blogger discussion, and
traditional media coverage, leading to its viral success.
Research Methodology
This case study seeks to answer three important research questions:
1.
Do established video audiences, or seed networks (i.e. e-mail lists, YouTube
subscribers, Twitter followers, Facebook friends and other social media networks)
contribute to an online video’s viral success by offering readily available
audiences to disseminate an organization’s video?
2.
Does creating video content over time build a seed audience that directly leads to
a video going viral, in contrast to the perception of instantaneous success that’s
implied by the term, “viral video?”
3.
Was the “Kony 2012” viral video’s success due in part to it’s seed audience
(largely social media) propelling the video beyond homogeneous online networks
and communities?
The following analysis is based on the examination of seed networks for video
34
campaigns, “Kony 2012” and “The Road We’ve Traveled.” Seed communities for this
research include Twitter followers, YouTube subscribers, Facebook friends and “likes,”
as well as YouTube and Vimeo views as stated on the websites’ pages for the particular
organization that uploaded the videos. Some e-mail data was used, however, most
organizations keep their e-mail lists private. Additionally, newspaper accounts about the
viral videos, “Kony 2012” and “The Road We’ve Traveled,” are used to discuss message
strategy, audience and other pertinent characteristics about the videos’ viral nature and
social phenomenon. The analysis from the literature review will be combined with data
and secondary newspaper sources. While all the definitions about what constitutes a viral
video will be considered, the definition for viral video posited in this methodology will
be the definition used to calculate, measure and to discuss each videos viral nature.
Redefining Viral Video
The working definition of “viral video” for this research and methodology was
derived from an interview with Colin Delany of epolitics.com (Personal Communication,
March 19, 2012). This definition looks not at total views, but the additional spread of the
video after the initial promotion or release of the video. For example, if you e-mail the
video to 100,000 individuals and they watch the video, the measure of viral success is
the measure of views after the initial 100,000 views from the e-mail. Therefore simple
calculations of a video’s viral nature can be computed by taking the initial seeding (either
through e-mail, Twitter followers, YouTuve subscription, Facebook friends and “likes,”
paid advertisement on a popular website or other promotion) of the video, and subtracting
it from the total amount of views. The remainder of views would be what is considered
35
the viral spread of the video.
Regardless of the total views, whether it is 1,000 or 1,000,000, the viral nature
of a video can be calculated using simple math. If the video that received 1,000 views
had an initial seeding of 100 individuals, the viral nature of the video would be 9 times
the initial seeding. Nine hundred views could be considered viral views. The same
hypothetical calculation can be made for the video that received 1,000,000 views. If
the initial seeding for the video was to 100,000 individuals, the “viralness” of the video
would also be 9 times the initial seeding. In this hypothetical calculation, the “viral
nature” of both the video that received 1,000 views and the one that received 1,000,000
views would be exactly the same.
Viral Video Case Studies
The videos to be discussed were chosen because their viral success added “value”
to the organization, rather than being for pure entertainment. Videos made for
entertainment or personal use are popular on the Internet and receive millions of
views. But for the purpose of this research, the videos will have a direct effect on an
organization’s value. Whether the value was for the business bottom-line and brand, or
whether it raised awareness for a cause or political campaign, it served a function for the
organization or campaign.
The “Kony 2012” video by advocacy organization, Invisible Children, will be
analyzed. “The Road We’ve Traveled,” a video by President Barack Obama’s reelection
campaign will also be discussed.
36
Findings and Analysis
“The Road We’ve Traveled”
The online political documentary, “The Road We’ve Traveled,” was made by
President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and has a runtime of 16 minutes, 56
seconds. “The Road We’ve Traveled” premiered at the prestigious film festival, South
by Southwest, and then was released directly to the Web where it currently has more
than 2,054,000 views after three weeks. On March 22, 2012 it reached number five on
the “The Top 10 Viral Video Ads Chart” put together by data from Visible Measures, an
analytics and advertising platform for social video. Visible Measures methodology for
their Top 10 list states:
True Reach™ measurement quantifies the total audience that has been exposed to
a viral video campaign, no matter where the campaign videos travel online. True
Reach measurement combines data from brand-driven seeded video placements
with results from community-driven viral video placements - spoofs, parodies,
mashups, and more. This metric is powered by our Viral Reach Database, a
constantly growing analytic data repository covering more than 200 million
unique videos from across over 150 different online video sharing destinations.
Despite landing on the prominent list of viral videos, much of the data in this analysis
point to “The Road We’ve Traveled” video’s success as a “viral video” as limited at best.
The numbers indicate that the video, which received more than two million views, has
not “gone viral” at all.
“The Road We’ve Traveled” is a slickly produced video created by Oscarwinning documentary director Davis Guggenheim. He previously directed the
documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” among other work. The Obama campaign
37
commissioned the video to be made to document the last three years of the Obama
presidency.
“The Road We’ve Traveled” is emotionally engaging, and walks the viewer
through the stark economic realities facing the United States over the last four years. It
is an “emotional roller coaster” that highlights how close the nation came to the brink of
a meltdown and another “Great Depression.” Teixeira’s (2012) research highlighted in
the literature review talks explicitly about engaging viewers’ emotions in an up and down
journey to keep them from clicking off the video. Although a 17 minute the video, it is
able to grab the viewers attention using imagery and emotional appeal. The New York
Times review calls the film, “solemn, compelling and almost apocalyptic in its vision of
catastrophe averted” (Stanley, 2012).
Additionally, with the presence of Obama, Bill Clinton, and narration by Tom
Hanks, the video has celebrity power. However, it is a stark contrast to the hopeful and
emotionally touching “Yes We Can” music video, which runs 4:30 and features Barack
Obama during the 2008 campaign along with a host of other celebrities. More apparently
are the differences in number of video views. “The Road We’ve Traveled” has received
far fewer views on YouTube than “Yes We Can,” which has nearly 24 million views, not
counting the multiple other uploads of the video. That is approximately 21 million more
views than “The Road We’ve Traveled.” However, in the coming months and years
the “The Road We’ve Traveled” may receive more views bringing the video closer to
equaling the number of views of “Yes We Can.”
Moreover, looking at the available seed numbers for “The Road We’ve Traveled”
indicates huge potential reach for the video, without mentioning the Presidential platform
38
commanded by Barack Obama. The seed networks provide insight into the initial viewers
and the potential seeding that could propel a video to “going viral.” The Obama YouTube
channel, named BarackObamadotcom, has over 208,000 subscribers, 57 uploaded videos,
and over 178,000,000 video views for all its videos. Obama’s official Facebook page,
facebook.com/barackobama, has nearly 26,000,000 likes. The Barack Obama Twitter
page, @BarackObama, has over 13,500,000 followers. First Lady Michelle Obama has
over 722,000 followers on her Twitter account, @MichelleObama. Additionally,
according to a 2009 Politico report, the Obama campaign has an e-mail list of over
13,000,000 e-mails, which may have grown in the last three years. Even if there is crosspollination, meaning the same person is an Obama Facebook “friend,”
Twitter “follower,” YouTube “subscriber,” and on the Obama e-mail list, this is still a
large seed network. These numbers provide clear indication that the Obama campaign
has a wide reach with their seed network for the initial dissemination of “The Road
We’ve Traveled” video.
When the “The Road We’ve Traveled” was uploaded March 15, 2012 to
YouTube, the 208,000 Barack Obama YouTube subscribers were notified. On Facebook
the video is prominently featured on the BarackObama page and those nearly 26 million
individuals who “liked” the page received a notice and link in their Facebook feed about
the video. Additionally, anyone who visits the page will see the video. To his nearly 13.5
million Twitter followers @BarackObama wrote and provided the following
tweet, “Adam from Wisconsin loved "The Road We've Traveled"—an inside look at the
President's first three years: http://OFA.BO/8zyPbk.” Likewise, Michelle Obama wrote
and linked the video for her 722,000 followers on Twitter: “’The Road We’ve Traveled’
39
premiered last week—it’s an incredible look inside @BarackObama’s presidency: http://
OFA.BO/8Hzy5P.” Meanwhile, to the more than 13 million on the Obama e-mail list
campaign staff wrote the following:
This Thursday, you're invited to the premiere of Academy Award-winning
filmmaker Davis Guggenheim's documentary about President Obama's first three
years in office and the tough calls he made to get our country back on track. Be
the first to see it -- and make sure others do, too. If you know anyone who needs
to know about the progress we've made under President Obama, this is the film
that they need to see (Appendix A).
The email provided a link to the trailer and also to a live online stream of the first Web
showing of the video.
“The Road We Traveled” received over two million views. By itself two million
views online is a considerably successful online video, especially for a video of nearly 17
minutes. Data shows that fewer than 1% of videos online receive over a million views
(TubeMogul, 2011).
However, based on the working viral video definition in this methodology, “The
Road We’ve Traveled” video falls far short of being considered a viral video. The viral
video definition posits that the “viral nature” of a video is the number of views it receives
after the initial seeding to online networks and communities (including paid placements).
If the seed networks for “The Road We Traveled” are added together, a basic
understanding of the total reach to potential seed viewers is known. Any spread after the
initial seeding would be considered “viral views.” The total known seed network for “The
Road We’ve Traveled,” is 53,530,000 seed viewers. The fact that the video has received
just over 2,000,000 views highlights that the video captured very few views from its seed
network, and the calculation falls in the range of a negative 51 million views. It therefore
40
cannot be considered a viral video even with two million YouTube views.
Understandably, there is crossover of individuals between social media platforms
that could lower the initial seed network. Yet even if you divide the added seed networks
by four (taking into account cross pollination of individuals) the remainder is over 13
million, a far larger seed network than the actual views the video has received. Further
complicating the measures, is that not everyone sent or notified about a video will watch
it. However, it can be drawn from the data that even those that did watch the video and
forwarded it to friends (which is what is needed to constitute a successful viral video)
was limited at best.
On the other hand, the “Yes We Can” viral video has a YouTube channel with
5,800 subscribers, will.i.am’s Facebook page has 2,800,000 “likes,” and he has 2,400,000
Twitter followers while the video has nearly 24 million views. With a 350 percent viral
spread over this stated seed network, the number doesn’t even take into account all of the
other uploads, mashups, parodies of the “Yes We Can” video.
It must be noted that the “The Road We’ve Traveled” video may reach 24 million
views matching the “Yes We Can” video and even surpass it. However, with “The Road
We’ve Traveled” video’s large seed network it will still fall short of being a viral video
success until it eclipses its seed network, which this research has calculated as over 50
million. This is an impressive amount of viewers to be sure, yet merely reaching this
amount of views would still not constitute “The Road We’ve Traveled” as a viral video
success.
A fair question is why the difference between the two videos, especially
with “The Road We’ve Traveled” video’s huge seed network? While viral videos are
41
fundamentally a social phenomenon, certain differences found in the literature and
research can be highlighted. For one, the video’s runtime, 17 minutes versus just over 4
minutes is a place to start. Shorter videos are commonly believed to garner more views
online. Meanwhile, the content in “Yes We Can” is one of a music video, and the other
a partisan political documentary. The important difference besides the actual content and
runtime, is the fact that “Yes We Can” was ostensibly a user generated video that the
2008 Obama campaign merely highlighted, in contrast to “The Road We’ve Traveled,”
which was created by the 2012 Obama campaign. Much of the authenticity of the “Yes
We can” video is derived from the fact it is highly produced, yet still user generated
content, albeit by a famous hip-hop artist. “The Road We’ve Traveled” on the other
hand is a commissioned campaign advertisement. This makes it hard to spread beyond
homogeneous networks having less appeal to certain online social communities because
of partisan political ideals. This fact potentially keeps it from spreading widely beyond its
seed viewers. Yet, the upcoming election cycle may spur explosive video views for “The
Road We’ve Traveled” in the coming months.
Despite “The Road We’ve Traveled” video’s limited views to date compared to
its seed network, another important element to look at is the overall video content on
Barack Obama’s YouTube channel. Currently there are 57 uploaded videos that have
over 178,000,000 views collectively. In the face of TubeMogul’s data showing the rarity
of actually going viral, building up content on the Obama channel has created sizable
viewership and views for an array of video content. This underscores the importance of
uploading content for subscribers and to attract new viewers to their online networks.
42
“Kony 2012”
The “Kony 2012” video has redefined going viral. As an Internet advocacy video
with a runtime of 29 minutes and 59 seconds, “Kony 2012” has become the most viral
video of all time. The original YouTube upload has over 87 million views and on Vimeo,
another video sharing site, it has over 17.5 million views. That’s not counting the over
750 translated versions and video responses that have populated the Internet taking the
video’s worldwide views well over 100 million. Visible Measures says, “if you just look
at the main clip on YouTube, you’re missing tens of millions of views for the campaign.”
The video has been translated into Spanish, Italian, French, Chinese and many more
(Visible Measures, 2012).
The video is slick, personal and well produced with a poignant narrative. The
video strikes a chord emotionally with the viewer. Invisible Children, the advocacy
organization that produced “Kony 2012,” had produced 11 previous films and had toured
college campuses across the nation building a large following on Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube over the last seven years. Their Facebook page now has over 3 million “likes,”
they have over 412,000 Twitter followers, and 261,000 subscribers on YouTube, and
over 93,000,000 views of their YouTube video content. These audiences provide a
tremendous opportunity to seed their films.
Adding up Invisible Children’s seed networks from YouTube, Twitter, and
Facebook, gives a total seed community of 3,628,000 potential seed viewers for “Kony
2012.” Additionally, Invisible Children has an e-mail list, however, the number of
individuals on their e-mail list is unknown.
The definition for viral video from this methodology was used to calculate
43
the “viral nature” of the “Kony 2012” video. Subtracting Invisible Children’s 3.6
million seed network from the 87 million views on the YouTube video, leaves a
remainder of over 83 million views. These 83 million views are the number of views
that are considered viral views. Those views are a 2,300 percent increase over Invisible
Children’s original seed network, which speaks to the explosive viral nature of “Kony
2012.”
These calculations are only for one “Kony 2012” video uploaded to YouTube,
and do not take into account the views of the other 750 video uploads. It should also be
noted that the actual seed network for Invisible Children may have actually been smaller
as they gained followers, subscribers, and likes as “Kony 2012” spread virally. Both these
facts point to the actual viral success of the “Kony 2012” potentially being greater than
the 2,300 percent increase over their seed network.
The “Kony 2012” video has raised awareness about Uganda born, Joseph Kony,
the rebel leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, whose brutal tactics enlists children
as soldiers. Kony is at the top of those wanted by the International Criminal Court for
alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes including murder, sexual slavery and
abusing children.
In making “Kony 2012”, the filmmakers asked themselves one question: "How
do we make this translate to a 14-year-old who just walked out of algebra class?" (Orden
and Steel, 2012). The video features the filmmaker’s young son who is explained Mr.
Kony’s crimes, and there are numerous references to Facebook and its power to spread
the message.
According to data by Visible Measures (2012), in only six days, Kony is the
44
fastest ‘campaign’ to surpass 100 million views. Susan Boyle did it nine. Lady Gaga’s
Bad Romance, which currently has 900 million views, took 18 days (Visible Measures,
2012). There are only two other social video ad campaigns that have topped 100 million
views: Blendtec’s “Will it Blend” and “Evian’s Live Young” (Visible Measures, 2012).
What started as a social media campaign to get the video noticed turned
into a media storm with coverage and analysis from every newspaper and media
outlet including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The
Washington Post and many, many more. The filmmakers’ original goal for “Kony 2012”
was to reach 500,000 viewers. With over a 100 million view, they far exceeded their
original goal.
The video has spurred furious criticism for its simplicity, which has also
contributed to its explosive viral spread. The Prime Minister of Uganda, Amama
Mbabazi, responded in a YouTube video saying, “Come and see Uganda for yourself:
you will find a very different place to that portrayed by Invisible Children.”
President Barack Obama also weighed into the fervor surrounding
the “Kony 2012” viral video. In a statement through his spokesman, Jay Carney, the
President “extended congratulations to the people who mobilized to promote a viral Web
video about the atrocities carried out by the Lord’s Resistance Army” (Goodman and
Preston, 2012).
To get this kind of attention and visibility, Invisible Children developed an
elaborate social media campaign to promote their video beyond their online social
networks. Their use of Twitter was especially important in getting “Kony 2012” spread
throughout the Internet. “They create narratives that can be boiled down to 140 characters
45
while still engaging people emotionally,” said Danah Boyd, a social media researcher,
in an interview with the New York Times (Goodman et. al, 2012). “They create action
messages that can be encapsulated into a hashtag. And they already have a strong
network of people who are, by and large, young, passionate, active on social media, and
structurally disconnected from one another.” Boyd said that was most important because
their message can be inserted into a range of conversations all at once, exponentially
expanding its reach (Goodman et. al, 2012).
“Crowdsourcing” may have been the key to the “Kony 2012” video’s explosive
take-off. “Kony 2012” explains to viewers watching the social media strategy, and
encourage the viewers to take part. This “crowdsourcing” strategy was effective in
reaching “culturemakers” and “opinion leaders.” To get the campaign rocketing through
the Web, the “crowdsource” strategy encouraged viewers to tweet 20 “culturemakers”
like George Clooney and Lady Gaga, and 12 “policymakers” like Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney and former President Bill Clinton.
The message the filmmakers imparted to viewers was to join the hunt of Mr.
Kony by clicking “share.” It struck a chord with younger viewers with data showing that
the average viewer was 24 years old during the first couple of days of the video’s spread,
according to Visible Measures. “We’ve seen plenty of people put up video for advocacy,
but never to say, let’s catch a guy,” Allison Fine, a writer on social media and activism,
told the New York Times (Goodman et. al, 2012). “You go from the post office, to
America’s Most Wanted to this. You are participating in a worldwide manhunt for what
appears to be a really bad guy.”
The “crowdsourcing” was fueled in large part by links on the Invisible Children
46
website that allowed viewers to send online messages seeking the support of “culture
makers,” like Angelina Jolie. While Invisible Children asked that its website visitors send
messages to those influential figures, the group didn't directly ask “culture makers” for
their involvement (Orden et. al, 2012).
This approach differs from traditional methods of courting high-profile,
influential people through traditional public relations methods. Instead, they leveraged
the power of crowdsourcing by making it possible for social media users to galvanize
celebrities via social media directly from the organization's website. It turns the
communication between social media users and celebrities into a public discourse
(Mulevey, 2012). When an elected official receives 25 phone calls on an issue they take
notice. Imagine what can happen when these opinion leaders receive thousands of tweets.
"Our goal was to find culture makers and policy makers who could be influential
in that space," said Javan Van Gronigen, the “Kony 2012” social marketer (Mulevey,
2012).
With the huge amount of tweets directed at the “culture makers,” the video got a
huge boost when Oprah Winfrey, with over 10 million Twitter followers began talking
about the film and retweeted its link. On her twitter account Ms. Winfrey says, “Thanks
tweeps for sending me info about ending #LRAviolence. I am aware. Have supported
with $'s and voice and will not stop.#KONY2012.” She continued talking about the film
over the next couple of days. Other “culture makers” including Rihanna, Taylor Swift,
Diddy, Alec Baldwin and Olivia Wilde joined in and posted links to the film on Facebook
and Twitter. Many did so at the urging of their fans. And the hashtags #kony2012
#stopkony began to trend worldwide on Twitter (Goodman et. al, 2012). Several days
47
later Ryan Seacrest retweeted and then Justin Bieber retweeted and published his own
post to his more than 18 million followers on Twitter.
The key to “Kony 2012” video’s explosive viral nature was creating a compelling
film and harnessing their seed network to reach beyond and into other online social
networks via Twitter (i.e. Justin Bieber and Oprah’s Twitter followers), Facebook, and
YouTube, catapulting the viral video to a record pace of views.
The “Kony 2012” viral video sensation is unprecedented for advocacy videos.
Not only does its nearly 30 minute runtime go against commonly held beliefs that viral
videos need to be under three minutes, but also its engagement of “culture makers”
by “crowdsourcing” their supporters to reach out to “opinion leaders” propelled the
video far beyond their seed network and community. The video’s slick, but clearly
high production value, and ability to boil down a complex issue into a simple narrative
connected emotionally with its target audience of younger viewers. “Kony 2012”
capitalized on its young viewers’ social media savvy to spread the video throughout the
Internet making them part of the “movement,” and onto a record breaking viral video.
The “Kony 2012” viral video phenomenon has created a new benchmark for all advocacy
Internet videos and online campaigns.
Since the release of “Kony 2012,” Invisible Children has produced and uploaded
several other videos including, “Kony 2012: Part II – Beyond Famous,” which has
over 1.1 million views. They have had multiple responses and clarifications to “Kony
2012” and have built-up their video channel on YouTube to 37 uploaded videos. The
importance of creating video content for their online networks and continuing the
dialogue with online viewers has proved an important tool for Invisible Children to
48
communicate and foster their social networks beyond the stratospheric success of “Kony
2012.”
Discussion
The “Kony 2012” and “The Road We’ve Traveled” case studies underscore the
importance that video now plays for organizations, whether it be advocacy, a political
campaign, or business branding. The potential reach that a video can have if it “goes
viral” transcends all forms of traditional media and injects an organization’s message and
narrative into public discourse. While viral videos are largely a social phenomenon and
nearly impossible to predict, building up video content for an online presence establishes
seed networks on social media platforms that have been shown to help propel a video
to viral success, as was the case with “Kony 2012.” Even though “The Road We’ve
Traveled” has not “gone viral” as of yet according the definition of viral video presented
in the methodology, it has over 2 million views because of a large seed network further
illustrating the importance of seed networks.
A large seed network guarantees an audience of interested viewers that are more
likely to forward and share a video with friends. Much like the NBC Nightly News has
roughly 8 million “loyal” viewers tuning in each week, an organization can build a seed
network and send its online video directly to viewers via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube,
direct e-mail or other social media platforms. Depending on the demographics of the
seed network, it can be effectively harnessed to catapult a video throughout the Internet
far beyond the initial seeding as the “Kony 2012” video did. This additional spread
beyond seed networks is considered the viral spread.
49
However, the literature shows that a video needs to be deemed “worthy” of being
spread and forwarded by the viewer. Creative elements and video content dictate whether
a viewer will forward the video. The literature points to grabbing attention in the opening
seconds and connecting emotionally with the viewer. Surprise has been found to be the
strongest emotion to encourage forwarding behavior.
“Kony 2012” connected emotionally with its seed audience and the video content
itself laid out the social media plan to the viewers involving them in the spread of the
video. The video, using crowdsourcing, directed its viewers to Tweet, go on Facebook
and utilize other means of social media.
Although “Kony 2012” was the quickest video to reach over 100 million views
making it the most viral of all time, this was not an overnight success as its viral success
might imply. Invisible Children spent the last seven years going on college and church
tours, building up social networks, and creating video content. One might argue that
the “Kony 2012” video’s success was the culmination of all the previous work by
Invisible Children.
As organizations build up video content on online platforms like YouTube,
it’s important to distinguish between manufactured views (i.e. views through an
organization’s seed network and paid advertising), and the additional views a video
receives from viral spread. The viral video definition stated in the methodology provides
a benchmark to measure an online video’s viral success.
While viral spread is the goal, if an organization has a large seed network,
like “The Road We’ve Traveled,” a video can receive a large amount of views regardless
if it “goes viral” or not. Even though “The Road We’ve Traveled” cannot be considered
50
a viral video by definition, it still has a sizable amount of views (over 2 million). This
realization makes the illusive Holy Grail aura of “going viral” less important. It refocuses
the dialogue around manageable benchmarks like creating authentic video content that
connects with viewers, building up seed networks, finding new online audiences for
videos, and formulating both short and long-term strategies for an organization’s video
outreach. The bottom-line for organizations is there are employable methods to gain
views for video content.
Conclusion
The importance of seed networks for the rapid spread of videos is vital to a viral
video’s success. Furthermore, seed networks can lead to a high volume of views even if
the video does not go viral. Video as a tool for organizations to reach online communities
with their message and narrative has never been so accessible and essential. It can be
concluded that the demand for video from online audiences will only grow, not diminish
in the coming years as bandwidth and access to Internet video increase. The daily growth
of the amount of video that is uploaded to YouTube alone (48 hours every minute) is
astounding. With the potential of going viral and creating online audiences, organizations
not only have the incentive, but the ability to create authentic video content as costs lower
everyday. However, the focus should not merely be on creating a “viral video,” but on
content that connects emotionally with viewers and that build a seed audience for the
organization and its videos.
This research does understand that some videos do invariably take-off virally
without any seed network or strategy. Yet the lack of ability to predict which video
51
will “go viral” makes these social phenomenons random and happenstance. While this
may very well be the case, organizations can employ an online video strategy that not
only increase their video’s chance of going viral, but also importantly builds an online
community around their content that can spread their message into diverse networks
throughout the Web.
52
References:
Albrecht, C. (2008, September 24). NTV Rerun: What Constitutes an Online Hit?
NewTeeVee. Retrieved from http://newteevee.com/2008/09/24/ntv-rerun-whatconstitutes-an-online-hit
Arneson, P.A. 2001 (Revised 2006). Plant Disease Epidemiology: Temporal Aspects.
Retreived from http://www.apsnet.org/education/advancedplantpath/topics/
Epidemiology/UpperLimit.htm
Bampo, M., Ewing, M., Mather, D., Stewart, D., and Wallace, M. (2008). "The Effects
of the Social Structure of Digital Networks on Viral Marketing Performance."
Information Systems Research 19, 3: 273-290.
Barely Political Youtube website (March, 2012): Retrieved from http://
www.youtube.com/user/barelypolitical
Barack Obama 2012 Campaign website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://
www.barackobama.com/
Barack Obama Facebook website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://
www.facebook.com/barackobama
Barack Obama Twitter website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://twitter.com/#!/
barackobama
Barack Obama YouTube website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://
www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom
Blendtec “Will it blend?” YouTube page (March, 2012). Retrieved from: http://
www.youtube.com/user/Blendtec
BlendTec Facebook website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/
BlendTec
Boulaire, Christèle; Hervet, Guillaume; Graf, Raoul (2010). Creativity chains and
playing in the crossfire on the video-sharing site YouTube Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing 4. 2: 111-141
Boynton, G. R. (2009, April). Going viral—the dynamics of attention. Paper presented
at the “YouTube and the 2008 Election Cycle in the United States” conference,
Amherst, MA.
Briggs, C. (2009). BlendTec Will It Blend? Viral Video Case Study. SociaLens Inc.
January.
Brown, J., and Reingen, P. (1987). "Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior."
Journal of Consumer Research 14, December: 350-362.
Cary, J., and Elton, M. C. J. (2010). Adoption of New Media. In When Media are New:
Understanding the Dynamics of New Media Adoption and Use (pp. 19-57) Ann
Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press.
Crane, R., and Sornette, D. (2008). Viral, quality, and junk videos on youtube: Separating
content from noise in an information-rich environment. In Proc. of AAAI
symposium on Social Information Processing, Menlo Park, CA.
Crowell, G. (2011). Social Video Marketing Lessons via BlendTec’s “Will it Blend?”
Reel SEO. Retrieved from http://www.reelseo.com/social-video-willitblend/
Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., & van Wijk, R. (2007). Why
pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Business Horizons,
Vol. 50, pp. 291-304.
53
Goodman, D., and Preston, J. (2012, March 9). How the Kony Video Went Viral. The
New York Times. Retrieved from: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/
how-the-kony-video-went-viral/
Hamilton, D. L. & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychology
Review, 103, 336-355.
Hampp, A. (2011). How to Make Your Branded Video Go Truly Viral. Advertising Age;
2/28/2011, Vol. 82 Issue 9, p46-46, 1p
Harvey, Stewart, and Ewing (2011) Forward or delete: What drives peer-topeer message propagation across social networks? Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 365–372 (2011)
Ho, J. Y. C., and Dempsey, M. (2010), "Viral Marketing: Motivations to Forward Online
Content." Journal of Business Research 63, 9/10: 1000-1006.
Huang, Chen, and Wang (2012) Factors Influencing Intention to Forward Short Internet
Videos. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(1), 5-14
Huang, C. C., Lin, T. C., & Lin, K. J. (2009). Factors affecting pass-along email
intentions (PAEIS): Integrating the social capital and social cognition theories.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8, 160-169. http://doi.org/c48
Invisible Children website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://
www.invisiblechildren.com/
Invisible Children YouTube page (March, 2012): Retrieved from: http://
www.youtube.com/user/invisiblechildreninc?ob=4
Invisible Children Facebook website (March, 2012). Retrieved from: http://
www.facebook.com/invisiblechildren
Invisible Children Twitter website (March, 2012). Retrieved from: http://twitter.com/#!/
invisible
“Jennifer Aniston Sex Tape” YouTube Video (March, 2012). Retrieved from: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n75gL4LWGA
Katona, Z., Pal Zubcsek, P., and Sarvary, M. (2011). "Network Effects and Personal
Influences: Diffusion of an Online Social Network." Journal of Marketing
Research 48, 3: 425-443.
Katz, E. 1957. The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-To-Date Report on an
Hypothesis. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 21 (1): 6178.
Keller, E., and Berry, J. (2003). The Influentials. The Free Press Division of Simon &
Schuster. 350 pages.
Kibby MD. 2005. Email forwardables: Folklore in the age of the internet. New Media &
Society 7(6): 770–790.
Kirby J, and Marsden P. (2006). Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word of
Mouth Revolution. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK.
“Kony 2012” website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.kony2012.com/
“Kony 2012” YouTube video (March, 2012). Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc
Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1981). Watergate: An exploration of the agenda-building
process. In G. C. Wilhoit & H. de Bock (Eds.), Mass communication review
yearbook (pp. 447–468). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
54
Lee, C. (2009, January 30). Team Obama mobilizing e-mail list. Politico. Retrieved from:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18208.html
Liu-Thompkins’ (2011) Seeding Viral Content: Lessons From the Diffusion of Online
Videos. Journal of Advertising Research. November 2011
Lerner, J. S. & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific
influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14 473-493.
Madden, M. (2007). [Online video]. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://
www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Video_2007.pdf
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda setting function of the mass media.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
Mcpherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. and Cook, J. (2001). "Birds of a Feather: Homophily in
Social Networks." Annual Review of Sociology 27, 1: 415-444.
Michelle Obama Twitter website (March 2012). Retrieved from http://twitter.com/#!/
michelleobama
Millward Brown Knowledge Point (2007a). What are the benefits
of celebritybased campaigns? Available online at: http://
www.millwardbrown.com/Libraries/MB_Knowledge_Points_Downloads/
MillwardBrown_KnowledgePoint_CelebritybasedCampaigns.sflb.ashx .
Accessed on 9 July 2010.
Millward Brown Knowledge Point (2007b) Advertising in a low interest category.
Available online at: http://www.millwardbrown.com/Sites/MillwardBrown/
Media/ Pdfs/en/KnowledgePoints/6E23CC28.pdf . Accessed on 9 July 2010.
Millward Brown Knowledge Point (2008) How to make the best use of
music in an ad. Available online at: http://www.millwardbrown.com/
Libraries/MB_Knowledge_Points_Downloads/
MillwardBrown_KnowledgePoint_MusicInAnAd.sflb.ashx. Accessed on 9 July
2010.
Mulevey, J. (2012, March 15). With Just 7 Employees, 'Kony 2012' Firm
Redefines 'Going Viral.' Business News Daily. Retrieved from: http://
www.businessnewsdaily.com/2198-kony-2012-video-company.html
Munnich, E., & Ranney, M. A., Song, M. (2007). Surprise, Surprise: The role of
surprising numerical feedback in belief change. Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 503-508. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Orden, E., and Steel, E. (2012, March 9). How 'Kony' Clip Caught Fire
Online. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: http://online.wsj.com/
article/SB10001424052970204781804577271692294533870.html?
mod=googlenews_wsj
Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., and Raman, N. (2004). "Viral Marketing
or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and
Motivations to Pass Along Email." Journal of Advertising Research 44, 04: 333348.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press. P. 11.
Rogers, E. M. (1994). Elements of Diffusion. In Diffusion of Innovations (pp. 1-37).
New York: Free Press.
55
Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, London, NY, USA.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution and judgments of well being:
Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Information and motivational functions
of affective states. In E. T. Hiffins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527-561).
New York: Guilford Press.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition and decision-making. Cognition and Emotion,
14, 433-440.
Shamma, D., Yew, J., Kennedy, L., Churchill, E. F. (2011). Viral Actions: Predicting
Video View Counts Using Synchronous Sharing Behaviors. Association for the
Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
Southgate, D., Westoby, N., and Page, G. (2010). Creative determinants of viral video
viewing. International Journal of Advertising. 29(3), pp. 349–368
Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide.
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 2, No. 2 pp. 79-95.
Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D. L. & Sherman, J. W. (1999).
Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and
causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 181-191.
Stanley, A. (2012, March 15). Obama Campaign Video Serves Up a Heroic Vision of
Catastrophe Averted. New York Time. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
2012/03/16/us/politics/review-of-obama-campaign-video-the-road-wevetraveled.html
Thales Teixeira (2012). The New Science of Viral Ads. Harvard Business Journal.
March. Retrieved from: http://hbr.org/2012/03/the-new-science-of-viral-ads
Thagard, P. (2006). Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition.
Cambridge, MA: MIT.
“The Road We’ve Traveled” YouTube video (March, 2012). Retrieved from: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2POembdArVo
Trusov, M., Bodapati, A., and Bucklin, R. (2010), "Determining Influential Users in
Internet Social Networks." Journal of Marketing Research 47, 4: 643-658.
Tube Mogul, 2011, Video Advertising Playbook: Brand Lift. Retrieved from http://
www.tubemogul.com/marketing/TubeMogul_Video_Ad_Playbook_Jan2012.pdf
Tube Mogul (2011). Tube Mogul Online Video Best Practices: Data-Driven Strategies
for Increasing Online Video Viewership. January. Retrieved from: http://
www.tubemogul.com/marketing/TubeMogul_OnlineVideoReport_2010.pdf
Usher, N. (2010).Why spreadable doesn’t equal viral: A conversation with Henry
Jenkins. Nov. 23, 2010.
Visible Measures. (2012, March 12). Update: Kony Social Video Campaign Tops 100
Million Views, http://corp.visiblemeasures.com/news-and-events/blog/bid/79626/
Update-Kony-Social-Video-Campaign-Tops-100-Million-Views
Visible Measures. (2012, March 22). The Top 10 Viral Video Ads Chart, http://
www.visiblemeasures.com/chart_types/2/charts/1458/chart_campaigns
Wallsten, K. (2010). “Yes We Can”: How Online Viewership, Blog Discussion,
Campaign Statements, and Mainstream Media Coverage Produced a Viral Video
56
Phenomenon. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 7:163–181.
Watts, D. J., and Peretti. J. (2007). "Viral Marketing for the Real World." Harvard
Business Review 85, 5 (2007): 22-23.
WeCan08 YouTube website (March 2012). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/
user/WeCan08
Westbrook, A. (2012, January 24). Six things to ‘forget’ to make better video. News
Rewired. Retrieved from: http://www.newsrewired.com/2012/01/24/six-things-toforget-to-make-better-video/
Will.i.am Facebook website (March 2012). Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/
william
Will.i.am Twitter website (March, 2012). Retrieved from http://twitter.com/#!/IAMWILL
“Yes We Can” YouTube video (March, 2012). Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
YouTube (2010). Press Room. Timeline. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/t/
press_timeline
57
Appendix A
Obama Campaign E-mail:
from: Jeremy Bird, BarackObama.com info@barackobama.com
reply-to:
info@barackobama.com
to:
date:
Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM
subject:
See the new film on President Obama
mailed-by:
bounce.bluestatedigital.com
signed-by:
barackobama.com
-This Thursday, you're invited to the premiere of Academy Award-winning filmmaker
Davis Guggenheim's documentary about President Obama's first three years in office and
the tough calls he made to get our country back on track.
Be the first to see it -- and make sure others do, too.
If you know anyone who needs to know about the progress we've made under President
Obama, this is the film that they need to see.
Check out the trailer (if you recognize the narrator's voice -- that's Tom Hanks), and sign
up to watch the premiere on Thursday, March 15th:
After you sign up, look for an email on Thursday with the link to the livestream of the
film.
When President Obama took office, our economy was in crisis, with 750,000 people
losing their jobs every month, the auto industry near failure, and the markets close to
collapse.
The Road We've Traveled follows the tough decisions the President made to bring our
nation back from the brink and fight for the security of the middle class, from reining
in Wall Street to ending the war in Iraq, reforming health care, and getting millions of
Americans back to work.
The story's told by the people who watched it unfold -- like the First Lady, Vice President
Biden, President Bill Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren.
Between now and November, this film will be one of the many tools we have to bring
others into this campaign and get folks out to vote for the President.
Because you're a part of this campaign already, you should see it first, then share it with
everyone you know who's been asking questions about the President's record or needs to
58
get more engaged around this election.
You could even invite them over to watch it with you on Thursday.
So check out the trailer now, and sign up to watch the livestream on Thursday:
http://my.barackobama.com/The-Road-Weve-Traveled-Livestream
Thanks,
Jeremy
Jeremy Bird
National Field Director
Obama for America
59