Viral marketing proclaimed dead (again)

Columbia University sociology professor Duncan Watts profiled himself as a non-believer of viral communication earlier this year with an article in the Harvard Business Review. His paper got finally picked up by Advertising Age last week, read it here.

Watts' research questioned the effectivity of so-called two-tiered (or trickle down) communication strategies, where a campaign to a small group of influencers spreads to a wider audience in a second stage. Watts found out that with every consecutive step the initial message waters down to virtually nil. The solution he suggests is to spread the initial message to a large group of easily persuadable people to reach a critical mass that in its turn will cause a "trickle up"-effect.

Satish of Naked NYC comes up with a different solution : where he doesn't start from "the message" but from different "message units" that are spread at random throughout a given group of influentials, counting on the effect that these influentials will feed from each other. He gives the rapid rise of Firefox as an example where different bits of information quickly built momentum within a large group of influentials, leading them even into co-creating the browser up to its current state.

So does viral marketing work? I think it comes down to your definition of communication. For a very long time viral marketing has been sold as the alternative for traditional marketing. Both definitions however start from the same communication paradigm, being that a brand beams out messages to people (whether they're influential or not). If you're a follower of this paradigm I think viral marketing is just an excuse "to do something without having the budget" and that Duncan Watts conclusions hold true.

If however, like us, you believe that communication is more than top-down messaging, every piece of communication becomes viral. This means that you should never consider your target audience as a passive receiver but as an active participant. The traditional view on viral marketing recommends the use of shocking or absurd humour but there is so much more ; for example by adding a utility factor, by being culturally relevant or by plainly creating a context that stimulates discussion among consumers.