Download The Power of Sharing: Viral Marketing in Web 2.0

Joyce Hui
WRIT2299
Professor Eayrs
Assignment B
The Power of Sharing: Viral Marketing in Web 2.0
Whether it is the latest „The Man‟ video from Old Spice, or Rebecca Black‟s “Friday”
music video, you may have heard about it through a YouTube link from your friends on
Facebook. Viral marketing is “the process of encouraging individuals to pass along favourable or
compelling marketing information they receive in a hypermedia environment: information that is
favourable or compelling either by design or by accident” (Dobele et al 2005). To jumpstart the
delivery of user-to-user communication about a marketed product, a company or advertising
agency may implement a publicity stunt to drive buzz and hype around their featured product or
brand. Since the advent of Web 2.0, online users are able to share positive or negative reviews on
marketed information through online forums, social networking sites, e-mail and messaging
services; the most popular of which is YouTube, a video-sharing website.
Viral marketing can even be viewed simply as „word-of-mouth‟ communication. Because
of the online environment we are immersed in today, viral marketing is far more effective than
traditional word of mouth communication. The online public sphere allows users to transcend
distance, furthering the possibility for viral marketing to gain widespread attention not only
locally, but also nationally and globally. The Internet has also become a place where users look
to and value the opinion of other users, such as in the form of reviews on a product that they may
be interested in purchasing or a critique on a new restaurant in town. Because of this, the
influence of an online peer‟s both positive and negative review is much greater than one of
traditional word of mouth communication.
This research essay will discuss the characteristics, benefits, and risks of viral marketing
and its notable uses in the consumer goods industry and the entertainment industry. Successful
campaigns in discussion are Old Spice‟s “The Man” played by Isaiah Mustafa and J.J. Abram‟s
2008 film, Cloverfield. Failed viral campaigns to be discussed are Toyota‟s “The Other You”
campaign and Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theatres campaign by Cartoon
Network.
Characteristics
Paul Lazarsfeld‟s two-step flow model of communication states that ideas initially flow
from mass media to opinion leaders in a community, who then pass along the message to a wider
audience, initiating the “second-step”. The key element to the two-step model is human agency.
In the same manner as Lazarsfeld‟s model, viral marketing is highly effective when
recommendations are passed along by someone who is an early adopter, a trusted source or a
peer in someone‟s social network or community. When a company creates hype around their
product, it aims to be perceived favorably by opinion leaders, such as bloggers or „v-loggers‟ (v
for video) with established followings, who would then share the information through word-ofmouth. To successfully create a favorable impression on the general public by viral means, five
factors need to be considered (Woerndl et al 2008):
1. Diffusion characteristics
2. Peer-to-peer information conduit
3. Message content
4. Product/service characteristics
5. Overall campaign structure
Diffusion characteristics address the speed at which the message can be spread among
audiences, the exponential rate at which the message can be spread, and the reach and
appropriate nature of the audience.
Peer-to-peer information conduit takes into consideration what communication channels
are available to be employed, what technologies are available, combinations of technology
leveraged, and the source credibility. If the source is not credible, no user would dare to click on
a link or to pass it on to others. If the information cannot be transmitted easily, no user would
bother to share the news to his or her peers.
The message content should be fun, intriguing, imaginative, engaging and easy to use.
These factors influence the probability of whether the user thinks the marketing news is worth
sharing or not. Additionally, the campaign should exploit common motivation and behaviour
(Lewis). Because people have an intrinsic need to validate their self-image against others, they
may achieve this by being the first person, or the innovator, to share something funny or
interesting to their peers.
The characteristics and structure of the marketed product or service needs to be suitable
for a viral marketing campaign in order to be successful. A viral campaign must succeed in
encouraging or motivating the opinion leader and other users to pass along the viral message.
Benefits
Since viral marketing is primarily executed through voluntary user-to-user transmission,
it is relatively inexpensive. Additionally, viral strategies can reach audiences in a short amount of
time as the message spreads exponentially at a rapid rate (Woerndl et al.). This quick diffusion
speed helps increase the adoption rate of the marketed product or service. By making use of
peer-to-peer transmission, companies can also overcome legal and privacy concerns and remove
the risk of „spamming‟ (Woerndl et al.) Peer-to-peer transmission also allows marketers to gain
access to diverse audiences through social contacts and can profit from effective targeting
(Woerndl et al.).
Risks
Although voluntary user-to-user transmission rewards viral marketing with the key
benefit of low costs, it also comes with its biggest risk: lack of control. Since the diffusion is
executed through user-to-user transmission, the rate of spreading is out of the marketer‟s control.
The content of transmission would also be out of their hands, risking possible negativity and
backlash instead of positive promotions. The spread of negative word-of-mouth communication
by users could result in “a negative brand image, product or service boycott, unfavourable
attributes associated with the organisation and its products and services, hate sites, etc.”
(Woerndl et al). Additionally, consumers may be reluctant to pass on the message if no rewards
or incentives are given in return.
Notable Examples
Success: Old Spice’s ‘The Man’ campaign (2010)
Known as “the guy in the Old Spice commercial,” Isaiah Mustafa found overnight fame
from starring in Old Spice‟s “The Man” campaign. The commercials feature Mustafa, shirtless
and wrapped in a towel, sometimes mounted on a horse (backwards), sometimes on a boat,
saying over-the-top lines to the viewer and smoothly transitioning from setting to setting. The
campaign was launched to revamp Old Spice‟s former „old man‟ image in order to attract a
younger demographic. Although Old Spice is a consumer packaged good targeted towards men,
women are the main shoppers and purchasers in the household. Consequently, the campaign
needed to attract the female audience as well as the male audience. The commercials were
strategically launched on YouTube on February 4, 2010, just before Super Bowl Sunday and
received 30, 000 views. After its TV spot during Super Bowl XLIV on February 8, the number of
views jumped to 250, 000 views. Currently, the video has over 33 million views.
The hilarity and outrageousness of the commercial urged many viewers to share the video
to their peers; many even created their own parodies of the commercial. By delivering their
commercials on YouTube, a media platform that is readily accessible, users were able to
effortlessly share what they saw with their peers through a channel they were already familiar
with. Old Spice, and its parent company, Proctor & Gamble, present themselves as a brand that
knows and understands the targeted younger and media-savvy demographic. The Old Spice
campaign has even set out a trend of outrageousness popular in recent commercials, as seen in
Dos Equis‟ „Most Interesting Man in the World‟ campaign and Dairy Queen‟s „Good Isn‟t Good
Enough‟ campaign, whose style is eerily similar to „The Man‟ campaign.
Failure: Toyota’s ‘Your Other You’ campaign (2009)
In 2009, Toyota launched a “terror marketing” campaign to promote their new car model,
the Matrix to a youth demographic (Halliday). The campaign encouraged users to play pranks on
their friends by filling out personal information about their chosen victim, such as their address,
birthday, eye colour, etc. Subsequently, the victim would receive emails for five days from a
stranger who knows all this personal information about him or her and tells the victim they are
on their way to his or her house. One of the initial e-mails included the victim‟s address and a
Google StreetView image of the house. New e-mails and text messages would also be sent over
the duration of five days, consisting of updates along the way and even a fake bill for a destroyed
motel room made out to the victim.
The campaign may sound suitable and fun for youngsters, but was definitely not for
everyone. On September 28, 2009, a lawsuit was filed against Saatchi & Saatchi, the advertising
agency responsible for the Matrix campaign, for terrorizing a woman and causing her to become
physically ill, as she was “convinced [that] "a disturbed and aggressive" stranger was en route to
her house” (Halliday). This campaign serves as an example of one that fell into the risk of userto-user transmission that spread to the wrong audience. Although the marketers hoped to arouse
humorous and fun-filled pranks in a younger demographic, the campaign was able to cause
mental havoc on an unsuspecting woman. Despite the effort in creating an interactive campaign
to evoke a playful image, the risks of using people‟s information without their own consent seem
to be greater than the reward of any successfully executed prank. The campaign also rarely made
any connection to the advertised product. The only sighting of the Matrix vehicle in the prank
campaign is seen through glimpses of the car in the background of photographs and videos
attached to the received e-mails.
Success: Paramount Pictures’ film, Cloverfield (2008)
Cloverfield producers, J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk, created viral tie-ins to the movie to
establish interaction with the viewer and develop intrigue about the mysterious film. A cryptic
teaser, with no mention of the movie title, was first released during the previews for the
Transformers movie in 2007. To add more clues to the storyline, viral-marketing websites were
created to provide viewers with a glimpse of the plot. One website was for a fictional soft drink
company called Slusho! and another for Tagruato, a Japanese drilling company. Shortly,
MySpace profiles for the film‟s characters were also created.
Burk explained that the tie-ins are “like tentacles that grow out of the film and lead, also,
to the ideas in the film….[Y]ou can go see the movie and it's one experience... But there's also
this other place where you can get engaged where there's this other sort of aspect for all those
people who are into that. All the stories kind of bounce off one another and inform each other.
But, at the end of the day, this movie stands on its own to be a movie.... The Internet sort of
stories and connections and clues are, in a way, a prism and they're another way of looking at the
same thing. To us, it's just another exciting aspect of the storytelling" (Scriretta).
Cloverfield‟s viral success began from the initial release of the teaser trailer. It took
advantage of the perfect platform to attract its target audience: „geeky‟ teenage boys who could
be found watching the Transformers film. The Cloverfield producers demonstrated that they
understood the behavior of the teenage „geeks‟. The teaser tempted every one of them to go
online and discover whatever they could find about the formerly untitled film. The supporting
viral websites and fictional MySpace profiles created an alternate reality for fans to immerse
themselves in a world that would hopefully lead them to a more concrete understanding of the
movie‟s premise.
Failure: Cartoon Network’s Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theatres (2007)
Cartoon Network‟s attempt at guerrilla marketing for Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon
Movie Film for Theaters in various cities resulted in a bomb scare in Boston, Massachusetts. The
campaign consisted of 40 battery-powered LED stickers of the cartoon‟s character, Igingnokt,
that were put up around ten major cities for two to three weeks (Pombo). The security alert began
when one of the devices was found under Interstate 93 in Boston (Pombo). Although the network
urged that the LED placard was just a BriteLite board, others recognized its resemblance to a
bomb due to its composition of a circuit board, wires and D-cell batteries (Jimmy).
Had the campaign been directed exclusively to fans of the original Aqua Teen Hunger
Force TV series, the feedback may have been more positive and interested fans who would have
recognized the LED cartoon may have shared the viral campaign with their peers. However, the
scope of the targeted audience, public areas in ten major cities in the U.S., was too broad and in
turn, alarmed the whole city of Boston. The bomb scare cost Cartoon Network‟s parent company,
TBS, $2 million. Immediately after the incident, Jim Samples, general manager of Cartoon
Network, resigned “in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under… [his]
watch” (Byron and Kelley).
Conclusion
Viral marketing is a very interesting but complex technique that could be used to
efficiently diffuse marketed information to various audiences. However, despite its low-costs and
time-efficient benefits, the technique is immensely risky with much of the campaign being out of
the marketer‟s control and into the hands of the consumers. If the viral information is initially
delivered to the right consumers and opinion leaders in the right setting, its viral success will
most likely endure. However, if the first step of the two-step flow targets the wrong audience, or
scope of audience, the campaign will most likely experience difficulties. Similar to all other
marketing campaigns, viral marketing requires careful planning in order to be properly
implemented. However, due to the risk of losing control, different scenarios should be predicted
and planned before deciding to implement the viral campaign.
Works Cited
Byron, Katy, and Rob Kelley. "Cartoon Network Boss Resigns over Boston Bomb Scare - Feb. 9,
2007." CNN Money. 09 Feb. 2007. Web. 4 July 2011.
Dobele, Angela, David Toleman, and Michael Beverland. "Controlled Infection! Spreading the
Brand Message through Viral Marketing." Business Horizons 48.2 (2005): 14349.ScienceDirect. Web. 2 July 2011.
Halliday, Jean. "Toyota, Saatchi Sued for 'Terror Marketing Campaign' | News - Advertising
Age." Advertising Age. 2 Oct. 2009. Web. 3 July 2011.
Jimmy. Mooninite5. 2007. Photograph. Wikipedia - 2007 Boston Bomb Scare. 9 Feb. 2007. Web.
4 July 2011.
Lewis, Kent. "Get the Bug: Viral Marketing Unmasked » SitePoint." SitePoint. 12 Sept. 2005.
Web. 1 July 2011.
Pombo, Jamy. "TV Network Takes Responsibility For 'Hoax Devices'"TheBostonChannel.com. 9
Feb. 2007. Web. 3 July 2011.
Sciretta, Peter. "Cloverfield Director Speaks." /Film. 14 Dec. 2007. Web. 3 July. 2011.
Woerndl, Maria, Savvas Papagiannidis, Michael Bourlakis, and Feng Li. "Internet-induced
Marketing Techniques: Critical Factors in Viral Marketing Campaigns." Int. Journal of
Business Science and Applied Management 3.1 (2008): 33-45. Print.