Traps to Avoid in the Quest for Viral

If you’re tempted to copy…don’t.



This doesn’t require much of an intro, but brands from enterprise-level to mom-and-pops are trying their hand at video in hopes that it will virally spread to the masses. We’ve seen or heard the success stories. Millions of impressions and loads of positive PR for what? $30,000? Yes please!

The temptation to copy this level of success doesn’t escape most of us. The thought may have crossed some of your minds, “I bet I can get Jim to bite Norm’s finger”, or “Hey, I can dance! Grab the Flip Cam!” Let’s look at a couple of aspects of videos that did, indeed, go viral and those that merely attempted to. It may surprise you what’s actually making these things catch on (and what’s not).

1. Authenticity. Okay, that’s pretty obvious, but it needs to be mentioned. Be careful with staged events and unauthentic responses. I’m not saying don’t use actors. Your concept may call for it. But don’t assume your audience is stupid, either. If you’re staging (feigning) a shocking, hilarious or unexpected event, your audience will know it or they’ll find out about it. Either way, your brand image is worse off than when you started.

2. Pay attention to this one. Existing brand following. My blog buddy, Edward Boches from Mullen, covered this idea this past week and inspired this post. Go back and check out the video at the top of this post. Here’s the point: that video is good but not great. It was just good. And it got over 1 million views within a couple of weeks. If the content really isn’t anything to talk about, why was it such a success?

Answer: Coke’s existing following. The second this video was posted, it went to millions of Coke’s already devoted followers. They’re a super-brand with a strong culture and cult following. That’s what made it successful. Not the content. For giggles, check out the video below that Bud Light just put out. Still very new but nowhere near the success of Coke’s video. Anyone think that the content is remotely comparable? Bud Light’s concept is better. It’s unexpected. It’s hilarious. Coke just did something that’s already been done. But they can get away with it because they’re Coke.



The important point here is that you better not be focusing on Coke’s content as the key to its recent viral success. Focus on creating a unique brand with followers passionate enough that they’ll mobilize. As I posted on Edward’s blog, if a mom-and-pop brand releases Coke’s video, it’s sitting on youtube right now with 7 hits – all from employees.

3. Great Content. I’ll forgive the eyeroll you just gave me. Yes, I realize none of us are intentionally creating mediocre content, but assuming you’re not a marketing director at Pepsi or Starbucks, you can’t afford to rip Coke off (or any other recent viral success). It’s just not good enough. You need something surprising…something incredibly intelligent…something hilarious…something simple and something NEW. It’s gotta be so good that we share it in spite of your brand…not because of it.

Thoughts?

Viral for the Sake of Viral

I read this morning about the popularity of the Megawoosh Waterslide video and it’s subsequent unveiling of illegitimacy - excuse my attempt at sounding like a dictionary, feels like a day for big words. Summary: the video’s as fake as one would suspect after viewing, and guess who’s behind it…MICROSOFT?



Forget the fact that large companies are trying their hand at viral video. With the amount of views Charlie Bit My Finger has garnered, why would you not jump on this train of low cost, high visibility? Plenty of people are talking about this, but the question I want to ask is, how has this helped Microsoft? How has it helped MRM WW in Germany – the organization behind the video?

First point (and one that is often argued by my friend Dominic Pannone): No agency is any more equipped to create a video that goes viral than my youngest brother and his friends with a crappy video camera. If you hear an agency claim “expertise” in viral or even the ability to make a video go viral, run the other direction. Videos can certainly be created with the intention of generating buzz on the web and hopefully being shared on a grand scale, but when agencies claim to be able to do this themselves, there’s an issue. This video is fake. Why would anyone want to watch it now? For it’s artistic value? If we suit up Knoxville and Steve-O in football pads and have them film Jackass 17, no one is going to go watch it. Why?

It lacks credibility and genuine origination.

Sure, we’re talking about it now, but we won’t be for long. Examples like this show me how little we still know about social media and content sharing and what causes (borrowing Gladwell’s language) something to tip. By all means, keep making videos with the hope of them going viral, but keep it real. Deception doesn’t pay off…ever.

Point 2: MRM will benefit from this…Microsoft will not. MRM was following orders and trying to generate a video that would deliver a subtle message of planning and organization that was fresh and people would want to watch and share (not sure if that was a run-on, but it felt like it). Most of us hadn’t heard of them, and we have now. In terms of concept and execution, they nailed it. It just wasn’t real.

Microsoft, on the other hand: nice try. You’re a smart company with brilliant people at the helm, but this one came in under the radar. First of all, had the deception played out as planned, how do you use this to sell MS Office? I’m sure you wanted it linked to you at some point, but this will probably sell more slip ‘n slides than Office suites. Secondly, you tried to deceive your audience. Yes, it was all in the name of fun, but the first time I saw it, my jaw hit the floor – certainly the reaction you hoped for. What now? MS made an attempt at video with the intention of viral spread. They apparently didn’t think it possible to generate this level of buzz truthfully. Chalk it up as a loss.