Best Practices in Viral Marketing
Author: Nemanja Rodić
Suupervisor: Elina Koivisto
January, 2012
About the Authors
Nemanja is an MSc in marketing student at Aalto University
School of Economics and a marketing teacher at Helsinki
Business College. He is passionate about digital marketing
communications and consumer behavior on the internet.
Elina Koivisto (M.Sc.) is a researcher at Marketing Department
of Aalto University School of Economics. In addition, she is
responsible for coordination of research within MediaMark
research initiative. Her topics of interest include sustainability
and ethicality of consumption, branding, fashion marketing,
virtual consumption and business model innovations. She
teaches marketing, consumer culture and fashion marketing at
Aalto
Executive Summary
The research presented below concerns the phenomenon of viral marketing, more
specifically identifying the critical success factors thereof. In addition to analyzing possible
CSFs, this research was concerned with clarifying the role of viral communications within
the broader scope of integrated marketing communications. Thirdly and finally, the aim was
also to understand what the possible ways of measuring and evaluating successfulness of a
viral marketing campaign are.
The reason for these research objectives is the ever increasing usage rate of internet
platforms by consumers which opens up new possibilities of reaching out to them and
engaging them in a dialogue. In addition to this, it was necessary to understand the
progressions found in the world of digital communications and thus reconcile and
differentiate the concepts of word-of-mouth, viral marketing and social media marketing.
To find the answers to proposed questions two data sources were identified: the thus far
published academic literature on the topic and the knowledge and insights of practitioners,
namely digital marketing specialists from Finland and abroad. Therefore the first part of the
research paper is a literature review, giving an overview of the theoretical discussion in the
field, whilst the second part presents inputs from 10 specialists, acquired through semistructured, in-depth interviews (the majority of respondents are ad agencies’ strategists).
The findings show that viral marketing is a digital progression of a concept as old as
marketing itself, called word-of-mouth. The emergence of the internet enabled a much more
rapid and far reaching dissemination of content which, unlike with word-of-mouth could
now be interactive and contain multimedia elements. Viral marketing however was
frequently associated solely with videos containing over-the-top content and as such was a
highly sought promotional tool by companies between 3-5 years ago in Finland. Nowadays it
is primarily social media marketing, which, even if called differently, is a tool designed to
yield for the most part same kind of results as viral marketing did and as word-of-mouth
does. Therefore, reconciliation between the concepts would be that we can define viral
marketing as a marketing communications strategy designed to generate positive word-ofmouth communications among desired audiences, both online and offline and both on social
media and other internet platforms. As social media platforms have dramatically grown in
the past several years, they have in a way succumbed the internet unto them which made
them the primary and most important internet hub to launch viral campaigns from. It is
important to note however that there are several purely viral forms such as e-mail campaigns
and advergames - however, in addition to these, any marketing communications piece has
the potential to go viral should the right tactics, as described below, be in place.
Going viral, according to the findings, means that after consuming the message one feels
compelled to share it with another person from her/his social network, thus acting as a
dissemination medium. Two critical success factors have been identified which need to be
satisfied in order to increase the likelihood of any marketing communications message going
viral and those are: social object and viral mechanics. Social object is a quality of a message which
compels the consumer to perpetuate its existence and it is two-fold: on one hand, the
content must relevant to the targeted audience and on the other it must yield at least the
lowest threshold of desired interaction i.e. the act of sharing; ideally, however it has the
power to yield more elaborate interactions between the sender and the recipient such as
being a conversation starter. Three types of content have been identified as those that
increase the propensity of a message’s viral outbreak: entertaining, interactive and positive
messages. Entertaining content was chosen as the safest bet from a variety of several
different types of content – it is however important to note that the type of entertainment
consumers seek has progressed from five years ago when viral marketing was peaking in
Finland, from edgy and over-the-top to back-to-basics type of entertainment. Namely, the
quality to be sought is originality and the type of entertainment which captures the essence of
an experience shared by many e.g. differences between genders, competition between
Finland and Sweden etc. Original in this context does not imply genuinely new, but rather
something which has not been seen recently. In terms of interactive messages, it has been
noted that this type of content is gaining more and more in popularity. The types of
interactivity are many and are essentially a matter of marketers’ creativity. They could
include: advergames and social advergames (e.g. making a Facebook version of a common
children’s game with a prize to be won and easy-to-share features), customizable messages
(allowing one to customize the message before sharing it e.g. putting friend’s pictures in a
flash application with a storyline and then sending it to that friend), talking to consumers (e.g.
creating an interactive video in which a character makes a phone call to the phone number
one has submitted before viewing the video; creating extensions of TV campaigns where
special videos are recorded as responses to viewers’ comments) alternate reality games
(creating elaborate gaming scenarios in both online and offline worlds that involve quests to
be completed individually and in groups). Finally, positive messages i.e. the content which
reflects inspiring ideals of consumers or the world around us are those that increase the
likelihood of being shared. In addition to this, positive messages could also be pieces that
showcase brand transparency and e.g. open company doors to consumers and show them
social and environmental responsibility efforts undertaken by the company. A single
campaign can also contain all these three types of content (examples presented in the
findings section).
In addition to the social object quality of the message and the types of content likely to go
viral, one must make sure to have the proper viral mechanics in place. This is not to say that
the content of a message could not motivate a viral spread on its own, however, with the
clutter of messages in the digital realm, it is better not to expect consumers to make the extra
effort and e.g. copy/paste the hyperlink and e-mail it to a friend. Instead, the rule that should
be abided is: make it as sharable as possible. This, naturally, means embedding different
types of share options such as a Facebook ‘like’ or e-mail button. In addition to the sharing
features, other viral mechanisms include the choice of platform to launch the campaign from
(brand’s social media page, brand’s website, campaign website, blogs, e-mail databases etc.)
and digital extensions (online versions of offline marketing communication pieces).
Putting viral mechanisms in place also allows us to track the spreading of a message and the
dissemination rate – most of these tools however limit us to the quantitative data which also
restricts viral marketing’s role within the integrated marketing communications context.
Namely, the findings show that virality can be and is mostly used for such marketing
objectives as raising awareness and shortening market adoption times. The respondents do
not disqualify the possibility of viral marketing doing more, however they assert that they
have not attempted to do more with it, to a certain extent due to limiting feedback they
receive on such campaigns’ efficiencies. It did emerge though that, should a campaign’s
content be positive, as described above, we can expect the feelings of loyalty to be fostered
and the brand’s positive image to be reinforced. Other than that, the greatest strength of
virality lies in its capability to reach far and spread fast – however, this on its own serves little
purpose. When designing a campaign with the intent for it to go viral, one should always ask
themselves: when virality occurs, what do I do with it? Which other IMC tools will work
synergistically with the viral effort and what is the big objective? Viral marketing can only do
so much (swift raising of awareness, quick market adoption etc.), however it is probably the
best tool for it. Throughout the research several examples are presented whereby virality
resulted in the kind of ROI which traditional advertising barely ever could achieve.
Please refer to the rest of paper for an in-depth elaboration of the findings presented above.
Contents
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................7
ORIGINS OF VIRAL MARKETING ................................................................................................................8
VIRALITY DEFINED........................................................................................................................................ 10
FORMS AND PLATFORMS ............................................................................................................................. 12
HOW DOES A MESSAGE BECOME A VIRUS? ....................................................................................... 14
THE POWER OF VIRAL MARKETING ..................................................................................................... 15
EVALUATING SUCCESS OF VIRAL MARKETING CAMPAIGNS ................................................... 17
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 18
THE FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Viral Marketing Defined .................................................................................................................................. 19
Critical Success Factors .................................................................................................................................... 20
Social Object.................................................................................................................................................. 20
Entertaining Content ............................................................................................................................... 22
Positive Content ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Interactive Content .................................................................................................................................. 24
Viral Mechanics ............................................................................................................................................. 26
Is It Only About The Buzz? ............................................................................................................................ 28
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................... 31
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 33
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................................... 36
ABSTRACT
This research paper concerns the nature of viral marketing campaigns and identification of
their critical success factors. The first section is a literature review that presents a summary
of findings of all key aspects of viral marketing ever since it emerged to the scene. The latter
section contains the findings of a series of interviews conducted with viral marketing
professionals from advertising agencies and companies. The findings show that any
marketing communications message has the potential to go viral provided that the social object
it contains is audience relevant and that the proper viral mechanics are in place. Three types of
content are identified which increase the likelihood of a marketing communications message
going viral and those include: entertainment, positive messages and interactive content.
Furthermore, the findings show that the role of virality within integrated marketing
communications remains primarily associated with short-term marketing objectives such as
sales, raising awareness etc. however not exclusively so, depending on the type of content of
the campaign in question.
INTRODUCTION
The growth in number of internet users has been dramatic ever since this platform came to
existence. According to internetworldstats.com, European countries lead with highest
internet penetration levels, with Scandinavian and Benelux countries topping the chart
(Finland – 85,3 % of population) 1 . A lot has been said and written about how this has
affected our everyday lives, interpersonal relationships and how we go about conducting
business in the digital era. However this research paper will focus on the marketing side of
the story. In particular on how an old concept of word-of-mouth has evolved with the
influence of the internet into something we call viral marketing today.
Viral marketing is one of the buzzwords that have been present in the realm of marketing
for slightly more than a decade, yet there is not much written about it and that which is
written is frequently incoherent – the definitions proposed to this date share the notion that
viral marketing is a consumer-to-consumer process, and that it is related to word-of-mouth
communication, however they differ in all other aspects (Vilpponen et al.2006).
1
For more information, go to www.internetworldstats.com
Nevertheless, we have witnessed a number of great success stories of viral marketing which
inevitably challenge other marketers to give it a try and achieve the kind of ROI that
traditional advertising barely ever could. Part of its appeal lies in the apparent simplicity of
viral marketing initiatives leading us to believe that big budgets are not a must and that it’s
the good ideas and marketing creativity that suffice e.g. the BlendTec Will It Blend?
campaign’s budget for the first video was less than 100$ - the subsequent 100 videos were of
the same format and production value, and resulted in a 700% sales increase and significant
increase in brand equity (Briggs, 2009). On top of that, rising consumer apathy as well as
advertising cost force marketers to seek new ways of successfully reaching desired audiences
and establishing rapport with them.
ORIGINS OF VIRAL MARKETING
Word-of-mouth is an old concept in marketing and it refers to a form of interpersonal
communication among consumers concerning their personal experiences with a firm or a
product (Richins, 1984). It is a complex phenomenon and generally not something that can
be controlled directly (Allsop et al.2007). Nevertheless it is of great importance to
organizations as it is a thousand times as powerful as conventional marketing by the measure
of sales figures and purchase decision time (Silverman, 2001). Pruden and Vavra (2004) state
that word-of-mouth is the highest ranked technique used by consumers to not only gather
information but also to make purchase decisions. Furthermore, Cruz and Fill (2008) assert
that consumers like to talk about their involvement with products and services for a variety
of reasons including prestige and status that may arise through ownership or a need to share
their purchase experiences in order to help others. Seth Godin, in his blog, suggests that we
simply like to talk about stuff if we perceive it to be good. Word-of-mouth has greater
influence on consumer behavior than print ads, personal selling, and radio advertising in
certain circumstances (Engel et al.1969) due to the perceived objectivity and credibility
associated with the parties involved (Cruz and Fill, 2008).
There is some disagreement in the existing literature when it comes to the question whether
word-of-mouth and viral marketing are the same or essentially different concepts. Klopper
and Montgomery equate word-of-mouth with viral marketing by saying that viral marketing
is just another buzzword for an already defined concept, called word-of-mouth (WOM)
(Klopper, 2001) and, furthermore, claim that viral marketing has been described in the
marketing literature for more than 30 years but termed word-of-mouth or the diffusion of
innovation (Montgomery, 2000). Most other authors however, focus on the differences i.e.
the progression from word-of-mouth to viral marketing. Granitz and Ward (1996), in their
research on usenet participants’ comments, found that viral marketing primarily differs from
word-of-mouth in that WOM is spoken while viral marketing is written. Another major
difference is that viral marketing is free from constraints that may arise from one’s
circumstances of his/her background, appearance, status etc. In other words, the possible
anonymity of viral marketing message forwarder allows for more truthful communication,
devoid of any boundaries. However, this was no longer the case with the emergence of social
media and individuals shedding their anonymity on the internet.
Another major difference between the concepts is the strength of the social ties (see Brown
and Reingen, 1987; Granovetter, 1973; Krishnamurthy, 2001). Brown and Reingen (1987)
describe these ties to be strong when the social group members are familiar and willing to
share with one another. Conversely, weak ties are when these relationships are superficial
and do not include openness and willingness to share. According to Granovetter (1973),
weak ties play a crucial role in word-of-mouth message dissemination as they enable a
message to travel between the social groups, thus amplifying the reach. If we think about
spoken word-of-mouth and digitally spread information on the web, we can see how these
weak ties would be more likely to be employed on the web, thereby initiating an explosive
spread of a message. For example, a message about a company or a product might be shared
within a social group with strong ties, overheard by someone that does not belong to the
group, and passed on within a new social group with strong ties – at the same time,
information (a hyperlink, textual information) posted on one’s Facebook page, is equally
accessible to all Facebook connections of this person, regardless whether the poster is linked
by a strong or a weak tie with them.
Seth Godin argues that word-of-mouth’s reach is short in the sense that the message goes
from sender to receiver and usually does not spread any further. On the other hand, a viral
marketing message, according to Wind and Mahajan (2001), spreads quadratically and not
linearly, meaning that the network members’ capacity to spread messages is equal to the
square of the number of network members. Essentially, this means that consumers infected
with a viral message will ideally infect more than one user each, thereby ensuring the
exponential spread of the message.
Based on the views presented above, it is safe to conclude that viral marketing is indeed an
evolved form of word-of-mouth - its digital progression. The primary difference is the
platform on which the message is contained which enables it to travel fast and reach far.
Besides the amplified reach, the character of the content has evolved as well in the sense that
the message can now be in various forms including text, images, sounds, videos, games etc.
The message no longer has to be a result of an experience between a consumer and a brand,
intense enough to motivate the consumer to spread the message – a much more superficial
experience, and not necessarily related to the brand, is enough to motivate the consumer to
pass the message along (for more, see Eckler and Bolls, 2011; Brown et al.2010).
VIRALITY DEFINED
The term viral marketing was coined by Steve Juvertson and Tim Draper in 1997 to describe
the manner in which free e-mail service called hotmail was promoted. Namely, the signature
line of every e-mail message sent through hotmail, the first online free e-mail agent, contained
an invitation to create a free hotmail.com account. This method of promotion was understood
to be viral in character as the message was being passed on by users themselves, thereby
contaminating one another with this virus. The word viral obviously stems from the word virus,
symbolizing the manner in which the message spreads, without the negative connotation of
the word. Marketers soon saw the potential benefits of this form of marketing
communication and today, 14 years later, there is a variety of viral marketing success stories,
books, academic articles, research projects and even agencies specializing in viral marketing.
Various terms have been used to describe this form of communication including: viral
marketing (Juvertson, 1997), buzz marketing (Thomas, 2004), word-of-mouse (Goldenberg
et al.2001), viral stealth marketing (Swanepoel et al.2009), referral marketing (De Bruyn and
Lilien, 2004), viral advertising (Porter and Golan, 2006) etc. While most authors agree that all
these synonyms refer to the same concept, they do not necessarily agree on the key element
of it, namely virality, or the way in which the message spreads. Cruz and Fill (2008) claim that
‘viral marketing communication concerns the informal, peer-to-peer electronic exchange of
information about an identifiable product or service’. Furthermore, they suggest that viral
marketing is not another form of advertising, therefore the distribution of a message should
not be controlled by financial means. This is in line with the definition proposed by Phelps
et al.(2004) who alienate viral marketing from advertising and describe it as ‘the process of
encouraging honest communication among consumer networks’. Another view coherent
with these is that of De Bruyn and Lilien (2004) who assert that the ‘goal of electronic
referral marketing is to use consumer-to-consumer (or peer-to-peer) communications, as
opposed to company-to-consumer communications, to disseminate information about a
product or a service, hence leading to its rapid and cost-effective market adoption.’
Conversely, some authors claim that we do not have to solely rely on consumers’ efforts in
message dissemination but rather can facilitate this process if necessary. Swanepoel
et.al(2004) claim that ‘viral stealth marketing is an electronic word-of-mouth communication
that is spread in an exponential and contagious manner using the highly effective platform of
the electronic medium…the people spreading these marketing messages are required not to
disclose the fact that they are being paid to promote the product for the organization’. This
view is in line with previously proposed explanation by Kaikati and Kaikati (2004) who
consider viral marketing to be one type of six different stealth marketing techniques (besides
celebrity marketing, marketing in video games, marketing in pop and rap music, brand
pushers and bait-and-tease marketing).
Wilson (2000) proposes a compromising view by stating that viral marketing is ‘any strategy
that encourages individuals to pass on a marketing message to others, creating the potential
for exponential growth in the message’s exposure and influence’. Another compromising
view is that of Watts and Peretti (2007) who introduce the big-seed marketing ‘which
combines viral marketing tools with old-fashioned mass media in a way that yields far more
predictable results than ‘purely’ viral approaches like word-of-mouth marketing’. They
suggest that marketers create and launch multiple viral initiatives simultaneously thereby
increasing the chance that at least one of them catches on and spreads like a virus instead of
relying on the content of just one campaign to generate the desired results.
FORMS AND PLATFORMS
There are various forms of viral marketing campaigns and platforms used for their
execution. Some of the most popular forms include sending e-mail messages to current
customers and encouraging them to pass them on. When designing these e-mail messages
developers should note that messages that spark strong emotion – humor, fear, sadness or
inspiration – are likely to be forwarded (for more, see Phelps et al.2004). Another common
form is seeding videos on websites such as youtube.com and relying on the content of the
video to stimulate viewers to pass it on - viral advertising relies on provocative content to
motivate unpaid peer-to-peer communication of persuasive messages from identified
sponsors (Porter and Golan, 2006; for more, see Eckler and Bolls, 2011). Third most
common form would be creating advergames, simple, easy-to-adopt and easy-to-play
computer games that in some shape or form contain a marketing message (for more, see
Ferguson, 2008).
Besides the above described forms of viral marketing and platforms that contain them,
marketers have their hands untied to employ/invent any other form which would essentially
work and is viral in nature. Some of these unorthodox, and not-easy-to-categorize examples
include:

Subservient Chicken 2 , Tip Ex Hunter Shoots a Bear 3 – interactive videos that allow
viewers to type in commands resulting in the video protagonists, chicken and hunter
in these cases, performing these commands. This kind of viral campaign is some sort
of fusion between a seeded video and a very simple advergame – after viewing them,
one can notice their tremendous simplicity combined with original entertainment
value. A similar campaign to these is that of football club Sporting Portugal 4 where
viewers are asked for their phone number after which an interactive video starts
during which the protagonist makes an actual phone call using the phone number
2
http://www.bk.com/en/us/campaigns/subservient-chicken.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ba1BqJ4S2M
4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--jZFUPr49Q
3
entered by the viewer. Thanks to this simple video/advergame and the buzz it
created, this football club had record ticket sales in a matter of days.

IKEA Facebook Showroom – IKEA published photos of furnished rooms on their
facebook page and invited members to tag pieces of furniture with their own names
thereby winning them. The tagging functioned on a first-come-first-served basis.

The Blair Witch Project5 – the filmmakers created a website containing a false piece of
information about the film being a true story and its makers disappearing during the
production of the film. This sparked interest in the public and resulted in the highest
ROI in the film industry ever recorded.

There are many more viral marketing campaigns that are hard to categorize including
Million Dollar Homepage6, Google Invite Only Pre-Launch etc.
One form of entertainment that has emerged in the last decade is alternate reality games,
interactive narratives that play out in the real world with participants shaping the story and
its ending. In other words, these are real-life computer games, performed on the internet,
through physical meetings, telephone conversations etc. The most successful alternate reality
game to date is considered to be Why So Serious7 which involved millions of players across
177 countries over the period of 15 months. This game, as most other alternate reality
games, was, in fact, a viral marketing campaign promoting the film The Dark Knight. It was
the highest grossing film of the year 2008 in the USA and according to its producers, big
part of this success was due to the alternate reality game that preceded it. Perhaps this can be
explained through rising consumer apathy and advertising rejection caused by the marketing
messages clutter in which the modern day consumers find themselves. Perhaps consumers
crave to see something new, a type of advertising that does not intrude, intercept and
persuade, but the kind that engages, entertains and satisfies. According to an old Roman
proverb, panem et circenses, all that humans need are bread and games. In the developed world,
where acquiring bread for most is not a struggle due to economic stability and consumer
affluence, marketers can step in and provide games. Perhaps that is why viral marketing
comes in so many different forms, most of which are engaging and entertaining. Viral
marketing, as an offspring of traditional advertising, is allowed to break boundaries,
5
http://www.blairwitch.com/
http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
7
http://www.whysoserious.com/
6
showcase unconstrained creativity and provide consumers with something they cannot see
on TV.
HOW DOES A MESSAGE BECOME A VIRUS?
Most authors agree that one of the key success factors of viral marketing campaigns are the
consumers who pass on the message. Cakim (2006) refers to these individuals as efluentials
and claims ‘they are key in generation of viral messages’. Other synonyms used to describe
these individuals include: evangelists, sneezers, super spreaders, high social networking
potential persons, super e-mailers, influencers etc. While several authors analyzed
consumers’ motivations to pass the viral message along (see Phelps et al.2004, Brown et
al.2010, Eckler and Bolls, 2011), very few tried to discover a way to identify the most
effective message spreaders. If we briefly analyze the world of personal seeded videos that
went viral i.e. received a great deal of attention (hits/views), we can see that in many cases it
was bloggers who played a crucial role. We have seen in many cases that the actual viral
explosion happened only after some media attention was directed towards the campaign (e.g.
Dove Evolution8). Nowadays, media is significantly fragmented on account of new entries such
as bloggers, vloggers and all other forms of non-corporate (or corporate), niche (or mass)
media voices that are emerging thanks to the internet. Bloggers are the dominant voices
within their audiences and if they find a viral campaign or e.g. a seeded personal video
interesting enough to post on their blog, this kind of exposure could create the avalanche
effect. Perhaps, bloggers are some of the key efluentials that marketers should go after when
launching a viral campaign. Scott (2010) suggests that companies should establish
relationships with bloggers by reading their blogs’ content and engaging in a discussion with
them. He claims it is ineffective to simply make a list of relevant ones and send them a press
release on the campaign, but instead we should build genuine bonds with them and then
when we have some content relevant for them, ask them to publish it.
8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U
THE POWER OF VIRAL MARKETING
We have witnessed a myriad of success stories where individuals achieved the kind of
exposure and success that they have never dreamed of, after only uploading a single video on
youtube.com. The best example would probably be teenage pop star Justin Bieber who in
less than three years went from being just another teenager to recording a CD, publishing a
book, a film, guest starring in a dozen of TV shows (including CSI and SNL), being
nominated for and winning many awards (MTV awards, Grammies etc.).
On the corporate front, one of the greatest successes is the Will It Blend?9 viral marketing
campaign. It was an investment of one hundred dollars and some creative thinking that
resulted in 700% sales increase and immeasurable raise in brand awareness since the viral
campaign began 5 years ago. The videos that make up the campaign are simple, one to two
minute productions, within which a character named Dickson blends various objects
(iPhone, Chuck Norris action figures, marbles etc.) in a blender, which is this company’s
primary market offering. According to Briggs (2009) who analyzed this particular campaign,
Will it Blend? was such a great success because it was authentic and involved elements of
popular culture.
Another, more recent, example is that of the Old Spice (The Man Your Man Could Smell
Like 10 ) campaign consisting of a TV advertisement that was followed by a series of
youtube.com videos made with the same tone as the TV advert and in the form of responses
to youtube.com viewers’ questions and comments. The campaign received a considerable
amount of attention in the form of hits, references in popular culture and advertising awards.
It is important to note that both of these campaigns’ successes are partially to be credited to
mass media involvement. Blendtec’s campaign received a great deal of attention in the early
stages in the form of airtime in various TV talk-shows as well as numerous mentions on
many popular blogs. The Old Spice campaign started as a TV advertisement originally and
was followed up by the internet campaign extension. This is not to say that these campaigns
would not have yielded a great deal of attention on their own – nevertheless, the power of
mass media cannot be neglected. The virality of a campaign means that being exposed to it
9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE
10
results in the viewer wanting to share this experience with someone else by exposing them to
it as well. Marketers should primarily create content that is viral enough in nature to ensure
replication of the virus. In order to achieve maximum results though, marketers should also
target various media voices and try to get them on board. Arguably, the media will present
those stories that have already generated enough interest in the digital realm and are thus safe
bets – in a sense it is only a matter of quantity i.e. number of hits, shares, comments and so
forth, rather than a question of a particular type of content. The bloggers/vloggers (Perez
Hilton, Shane Dawson, Arjan Writes etc.), games (Angry Birds) and viral pieces (corporate:
Will It Blend?, Sporting Portugal etc. and individual: Rebecca Black, Diet Coke and Menthos
etc.) have been picked up by the media only after having achieved significant popularity on
the internet. Hence, the corporate media, instead of being threatened by the democratization
of media i.e. user generated content, it capitalizes on it and draws ready-made pieces from it.
The threshold exposure which the campaign needs to pass before it becomes interesting
enough for media to pick up on it will probably be drifting away further and further as an
increasing number of companies and individuals have their take on viral marketing.
Nevertheless, if we want to achieve the kind of viral success as the companies presented
above have, it will have to be a combination of the campaign’s quality and some media
exposure.
According to a study conducted by Esomar in 1999, a customer experiencing good customer
service is likely to share this information with three other persons, while a customer
experiencing bad customer service will do so with nine other persons. This can have
devastating effects on a company’s brand image if we factor in the intensifying effect of the
digital platform as we have seen in cases such as with AOL11 and Comcast12 bad customer
service videos that went viral. In the case of AOL, a customer tried to cancel his subscription
which turned into a futile attempt as the customer service representative was determined to
keep him as a customer without paying any attention to his reasoning. As for Comcast, a
technician that was invited to fix the faulty equipment fell asleep while doing so. In both
cases, customers recorded the bad experiences they had with the companies, uploaded these
videos to youtube.com where they generated a lot of attention from viewers as well as from
11
12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmpDSBAh6RY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvVp7b5gzqU
media. These companies became synonymous with bad customer service and are still
struggling to clean up their image.
EVALUATING SUCCESS OF VIRAL MARKETING CAMPAIGNS
Several researchers and industry specialists have tried to define parameters for measuring
and evaluating success of viral marketing campaigns, however their findings are somewhat
incoherent. According to Helm (2000), the primary purpose/objective of viral marketing is
maximizing reach. Contrary opinion would be that of Jim Nail (BoD, WoM Marketing
Agency), who states: ‘To succeed in WOM marketing, you need to find that segment of real
ardent fans and create special programs and tools that will empower them to share that
enthusiasm...I think viral is an extension of the loyalty discipline’ (Ferguson, 2008).
According to Juvertson (2000, p.2), who was the first to define viral marketing, ‘ideal viral
message will convert and retain a large number of recipients as new users...penetration,
loyalty and frequency are appropriate evaluative criteria’.
Cruz and Fill (2008) who conducted a research on viral marketing evaluation state that the
approaches used to measure and evaluate the relative success of viral marketing
communications are many and varied. Futhermore, they claim that these approaches range
from changes in attitude and behavior, including the number of new users or levels of
loyalty, to measures of reach, frequency, penetration, speed of transmission and the content
of conversations, to mention a few (Cruz and Fill, 2008). Essentially, they assert that there is
no single criterion that could be used as a measure of success of a VM campaign – instead
they propose distinct goal setting at the beginning of the planning process which then serves
as a success evaluation tool for the campaign. They propose a framework which starts with
defining a VM campaign’s goal as being either cognitive (reach, awareness, knowledge),
behavioral (hits, downloads, dissemination rate) or financial (ROI, brand equity
developments as a result of the campaign). Subsequent steps involve defining the target
audience, deciding whether the message is overt/covert commercial or non-commercial and
finally choosing the media to launch it from (e-mail mobile phone, seeding website, blog)
and the message format.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
One of most ambitious research endeavors to date aimed at identifying critical success
factors of VM as well as defining a framework for evaluating its success was that of Cruz and
Fill (2008) resulting in a set of evaluation criteria that could be used. That research project
however included a sample of only five respondents which challenges the possibility to
generalize the findings. The authors themselves acknowledge the need to validate these
findings by including a larger sample.
With this research project I will try to increase the understanding of the phenomenon of
viral marketing – to do so I will set three research objectives (elaborated below), two of
which have previously been examined through the research of Cruz and Fill (2008)
(exploring VMC evaluation criteria and exploring the evaluation of VMC).
A sample of 10 respondents is chosen and these include viral marketing specialists (most of
whom advertisers) from Finland, Sweden and Austria. The method will be semi-structured
interviews through which I will try to shed some light on the following issues (objectives of
the research):

Isolating key success factors of successful viral marketing campaigns

Defining the purpose of viral marketing – what marketing communications
objectives does viral marketing serve best within IMC?

How can effects of viral marketing campaigns be measured?
The questionnaire consists of 10 open-ended questions and is in the appendix of this
research. The data will be analysed by employing two methods depending on the research
objective: namely, for the first research objective, the grounded theory approach will be
employed whereby the emergent concepts and ideas will be synthesized to form a
framework/hypothesis, while the questions related to the latter two research objectives will
be based on an existing theoretical framework. The framework used for creating questions
regarding the second and third research objective is that of Schultz et al.(1994). This
framework presents four possible effects of different integrated marketing communications
methods. My goal is to identify to which of these viral marketing has the capacity to
contribute to.
THE FINDINGS
Viral Marketing Defined
The opening question of the interviews was to define viral marketing. Respondents have
elaborated on their views of the concept by using terms such as word-of-mouth and sharing
content. Essentially, what the findings show is that viral marketing is a term referring to a
concept as old as marketing itself – the concept of word-of-mouth. It is the consumers’
perpetuation of a marketing communications message within their social networks. For
marketers it has always been the holy grail as it is a free form of promotion with greater
credibility stemming from the familiar source. It was renamed into viral marketing once the
digital platform came into existence thus forever altering the message sharing mechanics.
A majority of respondents (6 out of 10) pegged viral marketing as passé and something that
stopped being a buzzword around three years ago. Respondents, most of whom advertising
agencies’ executives, claim that companies no longer ask for the viral component in their
marketing campaigns. The social media zeitgeist is reflected in companies’ requests in so that
Facebook presence is becoming an imperative in their integrated marketing communications.
Respondents explain companies’ requests for social media presence to be poorly reasoned
and mostly motivated by a need to do the same as most other companies are doing. The
actual need they have from social media presence is to use it as a marketing communications
channel, sometimes a service channel and ideally create some fandom in the digital realm and
through it, initiate positive word-of-mouth. This goes back to the essence of viral marketing
and suggests that it is in fact not passé, just like word-of-mouth is not something that is passé
– the emergence of social media simply provided a useful tool to execute campaigns with
virality as an intended outcome. While the emergence of internet enabled rapid transference
of a message between the sender and recipient, the emergence of social media made it even
easier for senders to send these messages to large audiences that include one’s personal and
professional networks and the public in general. Whether we nowadays call it viral marketing
or social media marketing is irrelevant for marketers – for consumers on the other hand it
might be as the word ‘viral’ itself is not as much of a buzzword as it used to be. Positive
word-of-mouth with quick and far-reaching spread is what we are after and with users being
more connected than ever before, virality has more potential than ever.
When describing viral marketing as a buzzword of several years ago, respondents most
frequently referred to e-mail campaigns which, due to newly passed legislation in Finland, are
no longer allowed in the form in which they existed. They referred to seeded videos just as
frequently, and claimed that, due to saturation, companies no longer ask for the creation of
those. Through further discussion with respondents we established that viral marketing in its
essence is about the free distribution of a message motivated by the nature of its content – email campaigns and seeded videos are simply two of many forms of marketing that can go
viral and even though these particular forms are generating less interest from consumers and
thus companies, virality remains a desired effect of marketing communications. Between 3
and 5 years ago, when viral marketing (in the form of seeded videos and e-mail campaigns)
was peaking in Finland, it was rather easy to generate consumers’ interest and achieve the
viral effect; nowadays, due to saturation, it is much harder.
Critical Success Factors
Social Object
The two critical success factors in a marketing communications message going viral are social
object and viral mechanics. Social object refers to a quality in the message’s content which makes
it relevant for users and motivating to pass it along. This quality of a marketing message is twofold: on one hand, the appropriation of the marketing message through its re-distribution
demands that the message’s content be relevant and representative of the ideal the message
consumer is or strives to be; on the other hand, it has to generate interaction between the
sharer and the recipient at varying degrees, ranging from the simple act of sharing to
engaging in play centered around the campaign’s message (e.g. alternate reality games, social
advergames etc.). This means that the perpetuator of the marketing communications
message needs to perceive the message as relevant not only for her/him, but also for the
recipient to whom the message is passed along. The message’s content itself needs to be
such to ideally elicit an interaction that goes beyond simple prolongation of the message to
be a conversation starter or something which creates more dynamics between the sharer and
the recipient such as a challenge (social advergames). Simply put, there is no generic formula
on which type of content works better. When it comes to valence, Eckler and Bolls (2011)
claim that messages with a positive emotional tone are more likely to be passed along
(regardless of the type of content), as opposed to those with negative emotional tones. The
respondents in this research claim that the message’s content needed to be something overthe-top in the time when viral marketing was peaking in Finland, whereas nowadays it is not
essential. With social media as the primary platform for realizing such campaigns, the social
aspect takes precedence over the extravagant content – hence, most viral campaigns seen
lately in Finland come in forms of social advergames, where the idea is quite often rather
simple, while the act of involving friends to participate and sharing is easy.
When describing what kind of content would be most successful in creating this social object
quality of a message, respondents most frequently use the word relevant. In a sense, that does
not differentiate communications with viral potential from any other type of marketing
communications. After further discussing about viral content specifics, we managed to
isolate several attributes that this content should have if it is to go viral.
Entertaining Content
Among different types of content such as humor, violence, sex-appeal etc. all respondents
chose humor as the safest bet. Other forms were described as potentially successful in creating
the viral effect, however also characterized as double-edged swords to the company’s brand
image. Humor in itself however, can contain elements of violence and sex-appeal, however
as long as it is the dominant element, the message becomes less potentially harmful to the
brand image. The type of humor embedded in marketing messages intended to become viral
has changed as well. Initially, when viral marketing was a buzzword, this humor needed to be
something the consumers could not experience through traditional advertising channels.
Viral marketing was afforded a license to kill in the sense that it could go overboard and
contain elements that would normally be deemed as inappropriate to be shown on television
or in magazines (e.g. Quicksilver – Dynamite Surfing
13
). While doing marketing
communications on the internet was still a new thing, generating the desired PR effect
promptly was much easier. Nowadays, consumers are more sophisticated due to experience
with viral marketing and expect more than an over-the-top video that contains elements of
comedic violence, or a video posing as a self-made, amateur piece with the brand elements
embedded discretely in it. This is why the safest bet, humor, has morphed from shock-value
humor to relatable humor. As internet users converted from anonymous and voyeuristic to
personal and transparent, due to the emergence of social media, they became more particular
about the content they choose to consume and pass on. The respondents elaborate on this
type of humor as simply relatable on a great scale, original and essentially good. This is not
to say that modern-day consumers cannot be shocked, nor that embedded shock-value
would not yield the desired effect. Most of the respondents simply elaborated that ‘the hype
of viral marketing’ is over and when creating content we need to go back to basics and just
make it good. The risk-taking aspect of viral marketing is more expressed through original
ideas nowadays, rather than something edgy. One of the respondents illustrates this with a
campaign his agency designed for McDonalds whereby a simple game was distributed on
Facebook within which users would draw French fries out of a box and the one with longest
one drawn would be able to claim an actual burger at the restaurant while the one to draw
the shortest one would have to treat others who participated in the game to McDonalds
13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR_naKxLEPc
burgers. The idea is rather simple, however quite original and thus a success story. The
amount of time necessary to participate in the game is longer than that of viewing an advert,
thus the time of interaction with a brand’s advertising is prolonged. Besides originality it
allows interactions between the user and the content and among users, the importance of
which is elaborated later.
When describing this viral marketing humor 2.0, respondents use keywords such as original
and relevant. As our presence on the digital platform is maturing, so are the marketing
communications practices on it. Viral marketing becomes less experimental and untamed
and goes on to become another marketing communication method, the specifics of which
are now better understood by marketers. Humor, in particular, goes back to its roots of
being relatable in so that it captures an experience or an idea shared by many. If on top of
this marketers manage to make it original (as compared to other campaigns), the probability
of viral success will be increased. A humorous marketing communications piece may be
enjoyed by its respective audience, however for the members of this audience to share it, it
should be something that has not been seen already, or at least not in the immediate past. As
described earlier, the act of sharing means incorporating the message into one’s personal
integrated marketing communications, thus representativeness of the message partially rests
on its originality. According to several respondents, the emotions that drive and shape our
identity forming practices in the digital realm are rather primitive and include the need to
show-off by being first in the know which does not sound like too extraordinary of an idea in
the information age. This is corroborated by the fact that on many websites the button
which allows sharing some content on one’s Facebook wall (the like) is accompanied by the
tagline ‘Be the first of your friends to like this’.
Positive Content
Another type of content which respondents described as potentially successful in creating
the viral effect would be positive messages. The exact words respondents used to describe this
type of content would be inspirational, transparent and positive. In essence, this is nothing new
to advertising and PR, only now, we have these marketing communications messages as
digital pieces easily sharable by a click of a button. These positive messages on one hand have a
positive outlook on life thus creating an ideal of a better world and better versions of
ourselves in it. On the other hand, they could present aspects of a brand that would be
unknown to users before, such as specifics about manufacturing or materials extraction – by
making the life cycle of the product more transparent, the user feels more responsible and
more in control of the implications of using this particular product. The respondents have
illustrated these types of content with examples such as The Fun Theory14 - a series of videos
showing how human behavior could be modified for the better if the alternative way of
doing something was more pleasurable. In the principal video, called ‘Piano Stairs’, bypassers exiting the Stockholm subway are faced with a choice: escalator or stairs that look
like piano keys and produce actual sounds while one is walking on them. According to the
video, 66% more by-passers chose the stairs – and from what can be seen from the video,
enjoyed their walk very much. The core idea behind this video is to raise awareness and
stimulate interest for Volkswagen’s Blue Motion Technologies which enable environmentally
friendly performance of their latest cars. The Fun Theory generated over 26 million views
across 18 videos in YouTube.
In terms of transparency, one of the respondents illustrates its importance by explaining how
opening the doors of their business and allowing the public to view the information on supply
chain specifics, such as procurement of raw materials and environmental and social
responsibility related to it, has immense effect which is two-fold: naturally, this fosters loyalty
and builds brand equity, and at the same time it has viral potential. The transparency zeitgeist
is bigger than viral marketing and perhaps not sufficiently capitalized on in viral marketing. It
seems that in practice, when it comes to viral marketing and PR, virality is rather associated
with destructive pieces of information spreading and harming a brand’s image, than, as this
respondent explained it, opening the doors of the business, and involving the public in what happens
behind the scenes.
Interactive Content
That which then comes next as one of content types that could elicit desired viral effects is
interactivity and play. Interactivity is of course in the definition of viral marketing as sharing
marketing communications messages with members of one’s social network is in fact
interaction. However, these messages, besides being consumed and shared, could perhaps
14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lXh2n0aPyw
also be altered along the way. We have seen many examples of customization in campaigns
whereby viewers would modify the content and consume it that way (ICA Eco-Dance15,
Yearbook Yourself16 etc.) or engage in play with the content (TipEx Hunter Shoots a Bear17,
Subservient Chicken18, Why So Serious?19). Personalization of marketing messages is not a
critical success factor per se, but perhaps something which, if done right, could contribute to
the overall success of the initiative. The findings show that interactivity is indeed important
and is typical to viral marketing. If combined with good content it could lead to consumers
spending more time with the brand and getting involved more deeply. This reasserts the new
definition of viral marketing capable to serve more marketing objectives than just creating
buzz (elaborated later). One of the examples of interactivity provided by respondents is
again the The Fun Theory: Piano Stairs – namely, in the other part of this campaign, individuals
could send in their ideas on how to improve the behavior of traffic participants by making it
fun, which is the philosophy of Volkswagen Blue Motion Technologies. The best
submissions were awarded and included in the campaign. In fact, when it comes to this
particular campaign, it contains all three types of content explained here. The
idea/entertainment value is original in recent advertising, the viewers could contribute to the
campaign with their inputs and finally the tone of campaign is rather positive in so that is
inspiring and showcases good citizenship on behalf of the brand.
Most of the respondents however did not contribute with examples of interactive campaigns
– while interactivity was stressed as important by most respondents, almost to the point of
consensus, few of them have created these up to this point.
What makes viral marketing viral is the fact that the message consumer passes it on and thus
incorporates it into her/his own integrated marketing communications through the act of
dissemination which brings us back to the notion of social object. The social object thus means
that the message content, besides abiding all rules for creating marketing message content,
has to take into account the appropriation thereof by the consumer who is the message’s
perpetuator. The nature of the social object is entirely context dependent and could be
15
http://www.enteraward.com/viral/ecodance/
http://www.yearbookyourself.com/
17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ba1BqJ4S2M
18
http://www.bk.com/en/us/campaigns/subservient-chicken.html
19
http://www.whysoserious.com
16
understood through marketing research. This context refers to the consumer’s and brand’s
profiles.
Viral Mechanics
Platforms
Sharing mechanisms
Digital extensions
-
brand’s social media page
blogs
e-mail databases
campaign’s own website / brand’s website
’Share’ option that allows the content to be shared through one’s
social media page / e-mailed
Sharable, internet versions of existing offline campaigns
The second vital ingredient in a marketing message going viral, besides the social object it
incorporates, are the viral mechanics that facilitate its realization. Both are equally important
as the advent of these mechanics is what catalyzed the transformation of word-of-mouth to
viral marketing. Viral mechanics refer to a) platforms from which campaigns are launched
and on which they are contained b) embedded mechanisms for sharing and c) digital
extensions of campaigns in traditional media. The principal social hubs of the internet are the
social media platforms – they came into existence several years after viral marketing has and
have given an additional boost to the speed and distance to which virality can spread. It has
come to the point that most of viral marketing is contained on these platforms and thus this
is perhaps why respondents renamed viral into social media marketing. Obviously, the social
media is an ideal platform for viral spread of messages as it is extremely easy for users to
share information, within their social networks, which now include persons from multiple
spheres of their lives (professional, academic, personal etc.). This enables the message to
travel between social networks. At the moment, in Finland, Facebook is the most interesting
platform for companies to create presence on and initiate positive word-of-mouth.
Respondents, however argue that other platforms such as YouTube and Twitter could
perhaps yield greater results. Namely, the attraction of Facebook may lie in the popularity of
the like feature / simplicity of sharing – at the same time, respondents argue that the value of
a Facebook like is rather limiting in so that it tells us how much attention a certain
communications piece has gathered and not much more - essentially it depends on what the
objective of the campaign is and the logic of the social media platform a brand has presence
on. According to one respondent, Twitter yields more qualitative and thus valuable data than
Facebook, as there ‘people actually want to discuss with you and have something to say,
which makes it more valuable than a Facebook like’.
When it comes to sharing mechanisms embedded in the message, respondents, nearly in a
consensus, stress the importance of making a message as easily shared as possible. This is not to
say that consumers would not find ways of spreading a message with exceptional content
and valuable social object. However, it is these mechanics which increase the likelihood the
message viewer will pass it along. In simplest terms it could be a share button embedded in
the seeded video, advergame or any other form of digital marketing. Another blatant
example would be that of the (facebook) like feature which enables the easy message spread.
Once an item has been liked it will appear on one’s Facebook wall and thus become visible to
that person’s all Facebook connections. The rule to be abided is the easier the sharing, the better besides providing an easy and stimulating way for consumers to share content, these
mechanics also serve the purpose of tracking tools for marketers.
As explained in the beginning, any form of marketing communications can become viral if
the viewers start spreading word-of-mouth in both offline and online and environments.
Naturally, the online environment provides grounds for faster and further spreading and it is
hence important to make digital extensions of offline campaigns if we want them to go viral.
This can be done in two ways: either simply making the exact same content shown in
television adverts available online, or making a continuation of the campaign in the online
environment. Some forms of continuations of campaigns in the online environment could include
uncensored, uncut and extended versions of videoclips, which according to some of the
respondents generate less interest nowadays as opposed to several years ago; otherwise, we
can make interactive versions online and one of the biggest success stories of this would
without a doubt be the Old Spice campaign (The Man Your Man Could Smell Like20) whereby
the same character from the TV advert was answering questions of viewers in a series of
videos created afterwards.
20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE
Is It Only About The Buzz?
The second major question of this research was regarding the role viral marketing plays
within the integrated marketing communications. The respondents were asked questions
based on the IMC framework created by Schultz et.al 1994 which outlines four different
possible effects the various IMC tools can create. These range from behavior (purchasing,
signing-up etc.) to attitudes towards the brand, being on the other end of that continuum. In a
way the question seemed to be redundant as viral marketing is somewhat perceived as
synonymous with creating short term PR effects, the buzz, the awareness, which are then
later built on by other IMC tools. Therefore the question rather morphed into: can viral
marketing do anything more than just create buzz? Most of the respondents believe that it
can in spite of the fact that they only used it exactly for the purpose of creating buzz.
Namely, they elaborate how the strength of viral marketing lies in its capacity to swiftly raise
awareness of a certain object in question or to generate sales, sign-ups etc. In the words of
one respondent: viral marketing is more about some idea spreading quite fast…so I think the strength in
it is that something goes from one person to many, quickly. At the same time, they do not disqualify
the possibility of viral marketing being engaged as a tool to foster the feelings of loyalty
towards a brand, as well as creating a positive image of the brand in the public. If we go back
to the different types of content the respondents outlined as those that could increase the
likelihood of a viral outbreak, we can perhaps infer that the different marketing objectives can
be reached by viral marketing by incorporating different types of content in the message
(entertainment, interactivity and positive messages). If the message contains entertaining
content that is original (Will It Blend 21 ), it has a chance to become viral and result in
immediate increase in awareness and sales. That particular campaign contained the element
of interactivity as well in a way that youtube.com viewers’ comments would be scouted for
new ideas on what to blend in the next video. If, however the message is positive in nature,
as described above (either being inspiring or showcasing brand transparency), then it has the
potential to reinforce the positive image of the brand (The Fun Theory: The Piano Stairs).
When it comes to Volkswagen’s BlueMotion Technologies – environmental responsibility is
21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko
incorporated in the product itself, as these technologies are concerned with better
environmental performance of Volkswagen’s automobiles. The campaign done for it thus
inevitably was a PR effort as well. Perhaps it is this fusion of advertising and PR, packaged in
a digital communications piece, which opens up possibilities for virality which does not only
serve short-term marketing objectives, but is rather capable reinforcing the positive brand
image and thus building brand equity. One word that was stressed when it comes to viral
marketing doing more than just creating buzz was integration. Viral marketing which does
more than just buzz is rarely seen and we can best capitalize on it if it works synergistically
with other IMC tools. Most of the repondents expressed that virality should not be an end but
rather a means to an end – in other words, they wanted to stress that creating the buzz is
something which later or simultaneously needs to be capitalized on, with another marketing
communications effort, as virality itself is just generated attention. The success of a
campaign depends on the goals set for the entire IMC campaign. The isolation of the viral
effect is hardly possible. Any kind of feedback is limited to tracking mechanisms embedded
into digital pieces created by and contained on a brand’s fan page or website. The tracking is
limited in some platforms (youtube.com) and even in those where it is not, the data that we
have at our hands if only quantitative (how many shares, what is the reach, the dissemination
rate etc.) It is also this limitation of virals’ feedback to quantitative data which constrains
marketers from associating other IMC objectives than just awareness to their viral efforts.
Should future mechanisms allow us to get a deeper understanding about the act of sharing
on behalf of consumers, the definition of VM might change. When evaluating successfulness
of a campaign at its end, one should go back to goals set prior to its launch – this research
will hopefully direct marketers as to what kinds of goals to associate to their viral efforts as
well as which types of content and mechanics to choose in relation to those goals.
Even though respondents elaborated on techniques they use in order to create the viral
outbreak of a marketing communications piece such as creating the social object and putting
the viral mechanics in place, they say how they can never be sure whether it will be happen
or not. The fact is that internet is flooded with attempts at viral marketing most of which
end up being failures. Once a campaign with the intent to go viral has been launched, it is
possible to stimulate it to some degree, if the initial results prove to be disappointing. This
however, according to the respondents, is limited to the technical aspect of the campaign,
namely the viral mechanics; the content itself can be only slightly modified, and even so, only
peripheral elements, not the quintessence – for instance, if it is a social advergame with a
prize to be won, we can increase the potential gains. If however the core idea was wrong
from the beginning, the campaign will not become viral and attempts to modify it after its
launch will prove to be futile. When asked if they had to or how they would counteract a
negative piece that went viral about their brand, they nominate the basic PR approach of
damage control to be employed.
As for isolating certain audiences more prone to participating in viral marketing, all
respondents suggested tech-savvy, younger audiences, either teenagers or young adults, up to
the age of 35. None of them disqualified the possibility of creating this kind of campaign for
the elderly, however none of them have done it. The particular group of people they did
show interest in are those who have the high social networking potential, a dominant voice
in the digital realm and a propensity to share. Bloggers were described as the most common
target to be used as seeds of a campaign, motivated by various forms of incentivizing.
DISCUSSION
Most researchers of the topic of viral marketing to date have defined it as a phenomenon
outside of the realm of advertising and something that is for the most part or in its entirety
out of advertisers’ control (Phelps et.al 2004; De Bruyn and Lilien, 2004; Rosen, 2000). This
research however shows that advertisers consider it to be a form of advertising. In fact any
form of advertising can be viral, if the word-of-mouth communications start in both offline
and online worlds. On top of that, there are a few forms which are purely viral, such as
advergames and e-mail campaigns. Virality or word-of-mouth, is the desired effect and the
reason why campaigns that elicit it are pegged as viral campaigns. Through content creation,
choice of platforms and other considerations, advertisers try to ensure that virality happens –
they do admit that, even though viral marketing is much better understood nowadays, than 5
years ago, it is still quite hard to state with certainty whether a campaign will go viral or not.
This, they argue, is partially due to quickly changing consumer behavior in online
environments.
These research findings are along the lines of those by Kaikati and Kaikati (2004) and
Swanepoel et.al 2004 when it comes the dilemma whether incentivizing efluentials (Cakim,
2006) makes this form of marketing communications stealth marketing. Nearly unanimously
have the respondents explained how incentivizing is part of the process of planning virality –
naturally, it is impossible and wrong to incentivize each member of the desired audience,
hence giving incentives to efluentials only increases the chances of a campaign going viral, it
does not ensure it – for virality to happen, all other critical success factors, elaborated above,
would have to fall in place, hence, even with incentivizing, virality is not within control of
advertisers, but rather the degree of uncertainty is reduced.
Cruz and Fill (2008) develop of typology of viral marketing forms, these being: video,
picture, text and advergame. This research renders any kind of such typologies redundant as,
in the literature review, we have seen that some forms could hardly be categorized as either
videos or advergames and essentially it is not really important that they are. When asked
which of these forms they believe would work best, the respondents assert that it is the
wrong way to go about devising a viral campaign. The rudimentary consideration is an idea
that satisfies the social object consideration and is of one the three mentioned types of
content that are likely to be passed on. One respondent describes this by saying that five
years ago technological considerations would have gotten much more attention than
nowadays – since these mechanics are quite developed by now, marketers can focus all of their
attention on the content itself. The example which illustrates this is that of the Åttå Drinkero
campaign, designed to raise awareness and induce trial of the new beverage in the Finnish
market. It was launched both online and offline, however it is not the technical aspects of the
campaign launch which are to be attributed for the massive success, but rather the content
which is in line with the entertainment value content, as described above.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
When creating a campaign with the ambition for it to go viral, marketers should have a clearly
defined role for it within their broader IMC contexts. As shown above, virality will best
contribute to raising awareness of a particular object, stimulating immediate actions on
behalf of consumers such as purchasing, sign-ups etc. however, if devised properly, it could
reinforce the positive image of the brand, leaving longer lasting impressions, as well as
induce users to spend longer periods of time interacting with the brand. It is important to
note that achieving the viral effect is rather a means to an end, and not the actual goal itself.
When it is integrated with other marketing communications approaches, viral marketing
could prove to be a rather powerful tool, as none other has the capacity to spread a message
as far or as fast. The important question to ask oneself though, before creating a campaign,
is: what do we do with virality once we have it? What happens next?
The next important question is what the actual campaign will be. It is necessary to
understand the target audience as thoroughly as possible, which essentially is not anything
new or groundbreaking, but rather the way marketing communications have functioned
since the conception. The one step further we need to go in the case of communications we
desire to go viral is a) to understand why it would be important for the sharers to share i.e.
include your message in their personal IMC and b) does this message have the potential to
generate interaction between the sharer and the recipient at any degree. When we look at
marketing communications message perpetuators, and think of them as either the dominant
voices, influentials, such as bloggers, on one hand, or everybody else in the targeted audience
on the other, the motivation to pass the message along can either be an incentive or the
social object within it. We can incentivize influentials, but not all other members of the
target audience. If we look at influentials who pass the message along pro bono, and try to
understand their motivations, we will probably have an answer as to why would anyone pass
a message along. This is because, one’s personal communications function in a similar way
one’s blog does – through the content of our Facebook wall we express our opinions, create
basis for interaction with members of our social networks and construct our digital
identities. If we understand what the members of our target audiences consider to be
relevant and worth interacting over, we will have the message’s content. The content,
whether it is entertaining, interactive, positive or a combination of these types, needs to also
abide all rules for brand representativeness. It is not that hard to get everyone’s attention
once, with content that is over-the-top; it is hard to get the right kind of attention and to
embed brand elements wisely. Finally, making this content as sharable as possible will
increase the likelihood of it being shared in the end. The viral mechanics need to be the last
consideration in this planning process, however a critical one, because with the advertising
clutter in the digital environment, including that which has the ambition of going viral, we
should assume that users will not invest the additional effort to spread the message only
because of the social object quality of it is good and the content is something extraordinary.
Therefore, it is important to make it as easy as possible for them share.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The sample of ten respondents was big enough to make inferences presented above with
high degree of certainty. However, a differentiation emerged between the views of two
groups of interviewees: advertisers and marketers from companies. Most respondents (8 out
of 10) were in fact advertising agencies’ executives or planners and thus the findings of this
research lean more towards the thinking they have. It was mostly marketers from companies
who discussed the importance of fusion between advertising and PR when creating a viral
campaign, and the possible impact such a campaign could create. Perhaps, a research could
be done that specifically focuses on one or the other group.
Another topic that could be dealt with in more detail is the content of messages and relevance
thereof from the perspective of member of target audiences. In other words, how relevant
would content have to be for a person to perpetuate the marketing message and what are
other factors that interfere with this decision.
When it comes to interactivity as a feature on the rise among many viral campaigns, it would
be interesting to further research what are all forms of interactivity that campaigns created so
far incorporated. We can see some examples of substantial interactivity, such as in alternate
reality games, where the target audience members spend significant amounts of time
participating in this game and thus with the brand – it would be interesting to see how these
elaborate and long-lasting interactions affect brand perception and feelings of loyalty in
consumers.
REFERENCES
Allsop, D.T., Basset, B.R. and Hoskins, J.A. (2007), “Word of mouth research: principles
and applications”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp.398-411
Briggs, C. (2009), “BlendTec, Will It Blend?: Viral video case study”, SociaLens SL-0001,
January 2009
Brown, J.J and Reingen, P.H. (1987), “Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.14, December
Brown, M., Bhadury, R. and Pope, N. (2010) ‘The impact of comedic violence on viral
advertising effectiveness’, Journal of Avertising: Spring 2010; 39, 1; ABI/INFORM Global,
pg.49
Cakim, I. (2006), “Online opinion leaders: a predictive guide for viral marketing campaigns”,
in Kirby, J. and Marsden, P. (Eds), Connected Marketing: the Viral, Buzz and Word-ofmouth Revolution, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 107-18.
Cruz, D. and Fill C. (2008), “Evaluating viral marketing: isolating the key criteria”, Emerald
Insight, Marketing intelligence and planning, Vol. 26, No. 7, 2008, pp. 743-758
De Bruyn, Arnaud and Gary L. Lilien (2004), "A Multi-Stage Model of Word of Mouth
Through Electronic Referrals," eBusiness Research Center Working Paper, February.
Eckler, P. and Bolls P. (2011), “Spreading the Virus: Emotional Tone of Viral Advertising
and Its Effect on Forwarding Intentions and Attitudes”, Journal of Interactive Advertising,
Vol.11, No.2, Spring 2011
Engel, James E., Roger D. Blackwell, and Robert J. Kegerreis (1969), "How Information is
Used to Adopt an Innovation," Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (December), 3-8.
Ferguson, R. (2008), ‘‘Word of mouth and viral marketing: taking the temperature of the
hottest trends in marketing’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 179-82, ISSN
0736-3761.
Goldenberg, J., Libai, B. and Muller, E. (2001), “Talk the network: a complex systems look
at the underlying process of word-of-mouth”, Marketing Letters, Vol.12, No.3, pp.211-23
Granitz, N.A and Ward, J.C. (1996), “Virtual community: A sociological analysis, advances in
consumer research”, Vol.23, pp.161-166
Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, 79 (May),
pp. 1360-1380
Helm, S. (2000), “Viral marketing: establishing customer relationship by ‘word-of-mouse’”,
Electronic Markets, Vol. 10, No.3, pp.158-61
Juvertson, S. (2000), “What is viral marketing?”, Retrieved June 8th, 2011 from: www.dfj.com/cgibin/artman/publish/printer_steve_may00.shtml
Juvertson, S. and Draper, T. (1997), “Viral Marketing”, Draper Fisher Juvertson website,
retrieved June 6h, 2011 from: http://www.dfj.com/news/article_26.shtml
Kaikati, Andrew M. and Jack G. Kaikati (2004), "Stealth Marketing: How to Reach
Consumers Surreptitiously," California Management Review, 46 (4), 6-22.
Klopper, HB. (2001), “Viral marketing: A powerful, but dangerous tool?” Proceedings of the 3rd
annual conference on the World Wide Web
Krishnamurthy, S. (2001), “Person-to-person marketing: the emergence of the new
consumer web”, Retrieved June 6th, 2011, from:
http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/p2pqjec.pdf
Montgomery, Alan L. (2001), "Applying Quantitative Marketing Techniques to the Internet,"
Interfaces, 31 (2), 90-108.
Phelps, Joseph E., Regina Lewis, Lynne Mobilio, David Perry, and Niranjan Raman (2004),
"Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer
Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email", Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (4), 333348.
Porter, L. and Golan, G.J. (2006), “From subservient chickens to brawny men: a comparison
of viral advertising to television advertising”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol.6, No.2,
pp.30-8
Richins, M. L. (1984), "Word of Mouth Communication as Negative Information," in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed. Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, 697-702.
Scott, D.M. (2010), “The New Rules of Marketing and PR: how to use social media, blogs,
news releases, online video and viral marketing to reach buyers directly”, Jon Wiley and Sons
Seth Godin’s Blog, The mechanics of word-of-mouth (2007), Retrieved on June 6th, 2011
from: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/04/the_mechanics_o.html
Silverman, G. (2001). “The secrets of word-of-mouth marketing: how to trigger exponential
sales through runway word-of-mouth” New York: AMACOM
Swanepoel, C., Lye, A. and Rugimbana, R. (2009), “Virally inspired: a review of the theory of
viral stealth marketing”, Australasian Marketing Journal”, May 2009; 17, 1; ABI/INFORM
Global, pg.9
Thomas, G.M. (2004), “Building the buzz in the hive mind”, Journal of Consumer Behavior,
Vol.4, No.1, pp.64-72
Watts, D. and Peretti, J. (2007), “Viral Marketing for the real world”, Harvard Business Review,
May 2007, pp.22-23
Wilson, Ralph F. (2000), "The Six Simple Principles of Viral Marketing," Retrieved June 6th,
2011, from: http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt5/viral-principles.htm
Wind, J. and Mahajan V. (2001), “Digital Marketing: Global strategies from the world’s
leading experts” New York: Jon Wiley and Sons
APPENDIX
The questionnaire:
GENERAL
1. How do you define viral marketing?
2. Is viral marketing part of your integrated marketing communications strategy? (how so,
please elaborate) (alternatively, if a marketing agency: when you are commissioned to design a VM
campaign is it ever part of IMC or a single independent campaign)
3. What kinds of viral marketing campaigns did you execute?
a. audience
b. campaign form (e-mail, video, adver game, other)
c. platform / method (e-mail sent to whom? video seeded where initially? etc.)
OBJECTIVES & MEASUREMENT
4. As for viral campaigns/virality of IMC and following IMC effects:
i. transactions (purchasing, leasing, registering/signing-up etc.)
ii. partial transactions (website visits, calls, information gathering w/out
making a transaction etc.)
iii. affiliations/relationship with the brand
iv. feelings/attitudes towards the brand
- Which effects did you measure for your campaign (and in relation to virality
i.e. isolated effects of virality within IMC)? Why? How?
o did you have measurable behaviors set in advance as objectives for
the viral element in the IMC (if answer: ‘virality just happened,
wasn’t planned’, then: what element in the campaign do you
believe created this?)
- Generally speaking, to which end of that continuum does VM/virality of a
campaign contribute most?
o (alternatively, should VM be used for getting consumers to engage
in transactions or to create attitudinal shifts? For which is it
better? Why?)
5. When it comes to planning virality:
a. did you have an embedded call to action with a measurable response rate?
b. besides this, is there any other way to plan, stimulate and control virality? How?
c. When it comes to unfavorable virality – is it possible to offset it? How?
6. What kind of financial metrics can be done in relation to virality?
ISOLATING KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
7. Do you believe VM works better for certain
a. audiences (demographic/psychographic). Which?
b. in certain forms (seeded videos, e-mail campaigns, advergames, other). Why?
8. Content-wise – what elements should VM campaigns contain in order to ensure spread of
the message?
a. humor
b. violence
c. sexuality
d. shock-value
e. other?
9. How important are efluentials in spreading the viral message?
a. how did you engage them?
b. does it include financial incentives sometimes?
c. how relevant are bloggers for message spread?
10. How important is interactivity in VM?
a. What forms of interactivity?