Viral vs. word of mouth

Posted by Ben McConnell on May 5, 2008 at 4:34pm

Previous Post | Next Post View Blog Posts

Martin reports from Internet World in London that a panel of marketers wasn't even close to agreeing on a common definition of viral marketing.

First and foremost each member of the panel was asked to try an explain the term viral marketing which resulted in a pretty poor show as Chris Kempt said it didn’t exist. At least Scott Burton came up with “something to share and the means of facilitation in which to share experiences”. This discussion group was a nightmare which in hindsight it was always going to be. Each member of the panel seemed to try and get “one up” on their fellow panellists; in many ways it resembled a footballers’ press conference, with a whiff of arrogance hanging over the entire room.

Not surprising. The problem with "viral marketing" is that it's not a strategy -- it's an outcome of word of mouth. Getting to that outcome involves an ever-changing roster of technologies. The technologies will always change. Word of mouth will always be the source.

Therefore, for anything to go viral, it has to be worth talking about. Ergo, viral marketing does not exist.

Agree or disagree? Discuss it in this forum.

Comment by Mark G on May 12, 2008 at 3:50am: Personally I never liked the phrase "viral marketing". A virus is something unpleasant and nasty that you catch, it can be fatal and in some cases it can never be got rid of.

I can't believe any marketer would come up with such a phrase, then again...

Now if you'll excuse me I've got an itch I must scratch.

Comment by Michael Bolen on June 6, 2008 at 11:30pm: Well there are companies trying to tackle this problem and do word of mouth right. Check out their Mimic technology for viral marketing of video. It is pretty neat.

http://www.divinitymetrics.com