* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Part 4
Market segmentation wikipedia , lookup
Affiliate marketing wikipedia , lookup
Multi-level marketing wikipedia , lookup
Targeted advertising wikipedia , lookup
Brand loyalty wikipedia , lookup
Visual merchandising wikipedia , lookup
Ambush marketing wikipedia , lookup
Social media marketing wikipedia , lookup
Product planning wikipedia , lookup
Online shopping wikipedia , lookup
Marketing research wikipedia , lookup
Marketing plan wikipedia , lookup
Marketing strategy wikipedia , lookup
Customer engagement wikipedia , lookup
Food marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Marketing mix modeling wikipedia , lookup
Segmenting-targeting-positioning wikipedia , lookup
Guerrilla marketing wikipedia , lookup
Target audience wikipedia , lookup
Digital marketing wikipedia , lookup
Multicultural marketing wikipedia , lookup
Viral video wikipedia , lookup
Target market wikipedia , lookup
Global marketing wikipedia , lookup
Integrated marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Street marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing channel wikipedia , lookup
Consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Youth marketing wikipedia , lookup
Direct marketing wikipedia , lookup
Advertising campaign wikipedia , lookup
Green marketing wikipedia , lookup
Neuromarketing wikipedia , lookup
PART FOUR—Contemporary Topics in Consumer Behaviour Viral Marketing—To Get it Right You Have to Stop Trying The term ‘viral marketing’ was coined to describe a ‘network-enhanced word of mouth’ (www.dfj.com/viralmarketing). The ‘viral’ element refers to the contagion effect that can occur through this type of marketing. Consumers pass the message, idea, advertisement, song, movie clip or service to their friends. Depending on the degree of value the individual consumer places on the communication it can be spread to as few as one friend or to every person in their email address book. Those who receive the email can choose to ignore it or pass it on their friends and so on. The virus metaphor gives rise to a range of questions. What sets a virus off? Are all viruses bad? Are there different levels of virus? Does the consumer have any protection against them? Is it possible for the consumer to build up immunity against such viruses? Do marketers have any control over the spread of their virus? The short history of viral marketing (since the mid 1990s) has given rise to a number of key cases to illustrate concept in action. The explosion of Hotmail in 1996 was a result of the attachment of a clickable URL at the bottom of each email, taking the company from zero to 12 million customers in 18 months at a cost of US$50,000. John West became famous through the humorous UK television advert showing a fight over a salmon between a fisherman and a bear (www.adcrtic.com). A.I. (Artificial Intelligence), the Steven Spielberg film, was able to entice science fiction fans by creating a chase across multiple websites and other media in order to find the clues necessary to discover the identity of the mysterious Jeanine Salla, ‘sentient machine therapist’. Each of the above examples reflects a different use of the elements of viral marketing. In the case of Hotmail the spread of the message was based around the functional benefit of the offer; consumers were able to have their own private email address free of charge. Alternatively John West, like the many that have followed it, utilised humour as the currency consumers could trade with friends. A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) on the other hand used intrigue to engage potential film audiences, setting them a challenge through which they developed a desire to see the film. The success of each case was dependent on the consumer perceiving value within the viral transmission and deeming this value worthy of passing on to others. However, the ability to create successful viral campaigns will be diminished as the concept spreads. Consumers are finding themselves bombarded by funny, interesting or intriguing items from friends, often receiving the same items several times. As the ‘network-enhanced word of mouth’ incidence increases, consumers will begin to build immunity. The effect of the virus will diminish as consumers delete them, choosing not to pass them on to friends. To by-pass this immunity, marketers will have to create stronger or more sophisticated viral campaigns. One example that may be adapted to an electronic form was that used by Sony Ericsson for the launch of the T68i mobile telephone with PowerPack Online Cases t/a Consumer Behaviour 3e by Neal et al Part 4 camera. Sony Ericsson spent US$5 million on a campaign that in part utilised 120 actors who frequented popular tourist locations such as the Empire State Building in New York or fashionable bars and nightclubs. The actors would identify those from the desired target segment, approach them and ask them to take the actors photograph. Getting the product into the hands of the potential consumer, having them experience its ease of use, possibly having them ask questions about the product would be objectives of such a campaign. Sony Ericsson were criticised by consumer groups on the ethics of the campaign as the actors did not identify themselves as paid representatives of the company. A campaign such as the above is possible within the viral domain. Marketers could identify opinion leaders within a target segment and provide them with incentives to network the message throughout the target segment. The consumer, unaware of the marketer’s involvement, would likely regard the message favourably given the credibility of the source. Some marketers may see such an approach as a viable means of reaching the consumer. However, if consumers believe that their right to vet marketing information is being subverted, the backlash may have a significant negative impact on the product or brand. Just as marketers can utilise the interconnectedness of consumers through the web, so too can consumers. IKEA, the Swedish furniture manufacturer, experienced this first hand. In 2000, IKEA North America launched a viral marketing campaign offering a discount up to US$75 if consumers emailed an online postcard to 10 or more friends. Within the first week 37,000 cards had been emailed. Successful as such a campaign may appear, consumers began to complain, perceiving that the postcards to be a form of spam— unsolicited and of no perceived value. If marketers create sophisticated ways of executing their viral marketing campaigns so that consumers lose the choice of opting into campaigns, it is likely that consumers will respond negatively. In this case, complaints from consumers led IKEA to withdraw the promotion, citing it as too controversial. Consumers do organise themselves when companies have fallen short of what is expected. Sites such as www.notgoodenough.org in Australia canvas a vast array of consumer complaints. In the United States sites such as www.untied.com reflect the concerns of users of United Airlines. Finally, in the United Kingdom www.badpension.com provides a vehicle for those dissatisfied with the activities of financial institutions. In the electronic domain, for example, there is significant activity to reduce the level of spam. Consumers are being encouraged to complain about spam activity that violates privacy or is deceptive (www.accc.gov.au). If viral marketing is perceived by consumers negatively, it would not be a surprise to see the development of sites similar to those above. The best minds can spend years and millions of dollars trying to understand all the variables that influence the diffusion of a biological virus and still have no idea of what exact factors caused the virus to spread. Similarly, marketers can spend large sums of money and vast amounts of time devising a viral campaign. Yet the marketers may find the campaign does not meet the objectives set for it. Success maybe limited as consumers build immunity to viral marketing activities. Maybe viral marketing is PowerPack Online Cases t/a Consumer Behaviour 3e by Neal et al Part 4 being limited by the ‘me too’ approach many campaigns seem to possess. Or maybe success is being limited by the ability of consumers to organise themselves and complain. Discussion Questions 1. Discuss how consumers might respond if they perceived viral marketing was threatening their right to choose whether they receive an organisation’s message. 2. Consider a suggested approach for viral marketing where opinion leaders are targeted. Identify a good or service where this approach could be used. Discuss consumers’ likely response by consumers if they discovered the workings of your viral campaign. 3. Develop a list of elements you see as necessary for a successful marketing campaign. Having completed the list, type ‘successful viral marketing’ into www.google.com and research what others consider important. Compare the two lists and discuss any points of difference. Sources Anonymous (2001), ‘Fish in a can comes in second in Cannes’, Marketing Week, 28 June, p. 22. Flintoff, John-Paul (2002), ‘When buzz is not quite what it seems’, Financial Times, London, 20 September, p. 16. Jurvetson, Steve and Tim Draper (1997), ‘Viral Marketing’, Accessed 19 August 2003, http://www.dfj.com/epress/epress_factsfrset.html Landau, P (2001), ‘A.I. promotion’, Mediaweek, 12 November, p. 13. Olsen, Stefanie (2000), ‘IKEA cans spam-like postcard promotion’, CNET News.com, 13 March. Accessed 2 September 2003, http://news.com.com/2100-1017237937.html?legacy=cnet PowerPack Online Cases t/a Consumer Behaviour 3e by Neal et al Part 4