Am I am hearing more ‘viral’ banter these days?..I mean marketers talking about campaigns and their so called ‘viral’ factor? Over the last month, I’ve heard the word ‘viral’ used more than I can remember it ever being used before….surely I’m not the only one?
I feel a little strained when I use the word ‘viral’ now.. I’m starting to feel that if I want to use the term ‘viral’, then I should acknowledge why I am doing so in order to remain credible? Is viral an overused euphemism?
Social media has caused a definite stir of excitement across our Australian marketing community of late – the use of ‘viral’ seems to have skyrocketed, inline with our YOY Facebook usage statistics! Are we wearing ‘viral’ out, from overuse and potentially misuse? Do those of us who are belting out the term actually have a predetermined measurement index for a campaigns’ viral factor?
Is it that some of us are confusing the geometric mesh factor of Facebook, with a campaign’s potential to go ‘viral’ through the Facebook portal, maybe? Or is it that some of us think that it’s appropriate to use ‘viral’ with social media-based dialogue? I can see understand…if this is the case? Then I think: You Tube – hey, definitely a very exciting tool and strong-hold for ‘viral’ potential, but it’s not been the content of conversation, so I remove it from the equation that is that I think that ‘viral’ is being used too often.
Social media offers campaigns a very powerful carriage-way for distribution, and potential to drive campaigns further – is social media our highway to the ‘viral hall of fame’? Is that what this new found use of ‘viral’ is all about? Maybe.
Please don’t get me wrong – I’m an absolute advocate for all things ‘viral’ and have great respect and praise for marketers and brands, that have obtained a place in the ‘viral hall of fame’. This after all brings such a great sense of success, and achievement (including plenty of back-pat tokens for all).
The Big ‘V’, or ‘V’ effect is a sure goal for each of our campaigns and bespoke applications – I’ve even used the term ‘viral’ a couple of times recently myself! Post each time that I did however– I found myself questioning myself for doing so – was I using it in the right context, was I setting realistic expectations for my client, or was I simply so excited about the campaign’s potential to go there, that I had to say it?… I mean, as a marketer, I appreciate knowing that campaigns have the potential of going ‘viral’ and I’m in to that, but the fact remains that ‘viral’ is a term, that is being used far too much by marketers right now. Due to this, I’ve made a call to be ‘viral, as a marketing term to clients selective’ moving forward – I just decided one day, that I’d use the term less and be more realistic about all things ‘viral’ – I hope that others will follow. The fact that I am in the social media scene, I think, makes this even more important.
There is no perfect science associated with taking a campaign to a ‘viral’ state – it comes down to advocacy units, content relevance, carriage-way, and a consumer’s desire to share – and sure we can hope that a campaign goes ‘viral’ through social media, but the fact remains that if a campaign lacks any of these 4 components, then we can’t expect those pleasure tokens to come rolling our way.
As marketers, I think that it’s important that we remain aware of the importance that realism brings – I think that if we are setting realistic expectations about a campaign’s potential to go ‘viral’ with our clients, then l think that we are on the right track. Honesty, transparence, and a top shelf strategy will do no harm, whilst a well aligned, well targeted social network, and social media tool kit may certainly help to increase the ‘revs to viral’, via relative multiple touch points, and associated geometric mesh factor.
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment