4.2.1 Introduction to Viral Campaigns
Besides online ads, social media strategies may consider the creation of viral marketing campaigns. A viral campaign can be seen as a possible solution to an abundance of advertisements, because it relies more on personal communication.
Particularly, people are unable to process an excessive number of ads, resulting in a higher probability of ad avoidance or ad blindness (see Sect. 4.1.7). In such situations, personal communication and recommendations of relatives or equals tend to prevail. For instance, in section1.1.1, this book described the evolution from
“word of mouth” towards “world of mouth,” given the impact of social media on offline relationships and businesses. It was told that people tend to believe their acquaintances more than an organization that tries to sell its products or services.
Nowadays, people can talk to, make referrals to, and influence others around the globe (Allsop et al.2007; Kaplan and Haenlein2011). Consequently, when seeing viral campaigns as a solution to ad avoidance or ad blindness, viral campaigns can be described as “word-of-mouth advertising.”
4.2.2 Defining Viral Campaigns
A viral marketing campaign relies on unsolicited (i.e., not upon request),mouth-to- mouthcommunication through the Internet and social media. However, in contrast to traditional mouth-to-mouth communication, a viral campaign is inherently created by an organizationto promote itself as an employer (e.g., for e-recruit- ment), its brand (e.g., for brand recognition), or its products and services (e.g., for product awareness, higher sales, etc.). Particularly, a viral campaign can help create awareness, trigger interest, and generate sales or product/service adoption (De Bruyn and Lilien2008).
Once a viral campaign is launched, the receivers becomenew senders, and the message continues to spread, independent of the organization (e.g., mouth-to- mouth communication). In other words, while the original source of a marketing campaign is inherently an organization, people can start sharing the campaign. The literature compares the intention of a viral campaign with an “echo,” a “virus,” or a
“viral infection” that can spread exponentially and create a buzz or contagious talk (Kaplan and Haenlein2011; Thomas2004). The term “viral” is the adjective of the noun “virus” (i.e., derived from the Latin, where the word refers to “poison”), but has been adopted for online content that rapidly becomes popular or well known.
Hence, Kaplan and Haenlein (2011) define a viral marking campaign as “electronic
word-of-mouth whereby some form of marketing message related to a company, brand, or product is transmitted in an exponentially growing way—often through the use of social media applications” (p. 253).
The way a successful viral campaign works is an illustration of the “social ripple effect” (see Sect. 2.1.1). Particularly, Fig. 4.3 illustrates how a viral campaign typically works. As shown on the left, it starts with an organization (otherwise it would concern customer conversations or criticism instead of a campaign; see Chap.5 on social CRM). When people receive the message, they can share it in their network. As such, the receivers become new senders. When those people also start sharing the content, a social ripple effect is created. Similar to an “echo,” a
“virus,” or a “viral infection,” the message can reach an increasing number of people as it exponentially moves to the right of Fig.4.3. This characteristic implies that the success of a viral campaign strongly depends on how many times the corporate message is shared (i.e., and which defines at which level Fig.4.3actually stops).
Another implication for a viral campaign is that the message (once launched by an organization) continues to spread, independent of the original source. The latter implies that people may change the content before sharing. Such changes can be positive, e.g., to make the content more funny (resulting in even more shares).
Nevertheless, changes can also be negative, e.g., if pressure groups turn the content into criticism with drawbacks for the organization. Hence, before launching a viral campaign, an organization should be aware of the fact that it cannot control its corporate message once the campaign is launched (i.e., in contrast to online advertising).
… …
… …
… …
… …
Fig. 4.3 Defining viral campaigns
4.2.3 Success Stories of Viral Campaigns
This section illustrates some successful viral marketing campaigns (Wikipedia 2014b). We remind the reader that success not only depends on social metrics (e.g., the number of views, likes, comments, shares, etc.) but also on the realization of business objectives (e.g., conversions, ROI, etc.).
• Hotmail™launch (1996). One of the first viral campaigns was launched by the electronic mail service of Hotmail™in the 1990s, namely, during the upcoming use of the Internet. In order to obtain more email accounts, Hotmail™automati- cally added a short message at the bottom of every outgoing mail: “PS: Get your private, free email from Hotmail™athttp://www.hotmail.com.” The message was an invitation for the mail recipient to join Hotmail™too. The campaign can be called a success as 12 million users signed in within 18 months. Only recently, in 2013, Hotmail™stopped existing and sold its mail service to Microsoft™’s outlook.com.
• Nike™(2006). Nowadays, viral campaigns are more frequently used than in the 1990s, especially by brands that focus on younger customers who are familiar with social media (i.e., also referred to as “generation Y”). One example is Nike™, which frequently launches YouTube™videos of sportsmen wearing Nike™products (e.g., a video in which Ronaldinho plays football in 2006).
• Blendtec™(2006). The “Will it blend” campaign was launched by an organiza- tion that sells blenders. In order to show the power of the blenders, the organiza- tion recorded a series of videos in which household items (instead of food) are being blended, e.g., an iPhone™, an iPad™, a skeleton, super glue, glow sticks, etc. The YouTube™videos are still available on a corporate website: http://
www.willitblend.com/. The website also suggests some blending experiments that customers can try at home (i.e., by distinguishing the category “Try this at home” from “Don’t try this at home”). For a direct link to a popular video that shows how an iPhone™is being blended, seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?
v¼qg1ckCkm8YI. Although a scientist seems to test the blender, the videos are part of a viral campaign created by the organization itself.
• Mentos™ and Diet Coke™(2007). Another notable YouTube™ video that refers to an experiment of scientists was launched to promote Mentos™mints and Diet Coke™. In contrast to the “Will it blend” video, this experiment was initially not meant as a commercial campaign. Instead, the Discovery Channel program “MythBusters” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼LjbJELjLgZg) broadcasted an experiment for children that created large eruptions or geysers by dropping Mentos™chewy mints in bottles of soda (e.g., Perrier™, Sprite™, classic Coke™, Diet Coke™). The scientists also explained the phenomenon by stipulating that a fountain of spray and foam comes out of the bottles based on an acid-based chemical reaction (i.e., as soda beverages are acidic). Although Coca-Cola™ and Mentos™ had no part in creating the original video, their sales significantly increased. Hence, afterwards, viral campaigns were launched with the same scientists, among others (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v¼hKoB0MHVBvM&gl¼BE), but now sponsored by the organizations involved.
• Burger King™(2004). In addition to the previous examples, viral campaigns can also be more interactive than video sharing. One example is a game developed by Burger King™in 2004. To promote a chicken sandwich, Burger King™introduced the slogan: “Get chicken just the way you like it.” Besides the traditional commercials, a web page was created called “The subservient chicken.” On that page, a man in a chicken suit performed a range of actions based on the user’s input. In other words, an Internet user could type a word, and the chicken would perform a specific action linked to that word. For instance, when someone asked “Do you like hamburgers,” the chicken would rub its belly.
Although all actions were prerecorded, the game seemed like an interactive webcam.
• Simpsons™movie (2007). Other successful viral campaigns exist that stimulate specific website visits. For instance, when a Simpsons™movie was released on DVD, people could create their own customized DVD cover by creating an avatar of themselves (http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/).
• #IceBucketChallenge (2014). More recently, the ALS association created a successful viral campaign to raise awareness of the ALS disease and to encour- age donations to research on ALS (http://www.alsa.org/fight-als/ice-bucket-chal lenge.html). The campaign challenged people to dump a bucket of ice-cold water on one’s head and to nominate others for the challenge by means of social media and/or to donate money. In 2014, this charity campaign went international, many celebrities participated in the challenge (e.g., actors, politicians, football players, CEOs, etc.), and millions of dollars were donated to the association. In some countries (e.g., India), an alternative “rice bucket challenge” was introduced to give a bucket of rice to someone in need.
4.2.4 Tips and Tricks for Viral Campaigns
Before a viral campaign can become successful and thus an alternative to online advertising, it should be voluntarily shared and spread exponentially (i.e., similar to an echo, a viral infection, or a virus). The following goals can help satisfy this condition (Dobele et al.2005,2007; Woerndl et al.2008):
• Goal 1. Create content that people are eager to share (e.g., video clips, interactive games, e-books, images, text messages, etc.).
• Goal 2. Focus on trendsetters, namely, people who can influence others and who can start the sharing process.
The first goal implied by viral campaigns is related to the content of the corporate message. Research has shown that a message is more likely to be shared when it applies some factors to engage people, for instance (Dobele et al. 2005, 2007; Woerndl et al.2008):
• The message teases emotions (e.g., surprise, joy, sadness, anger, fear, disgust), such as being extremely funny or extremely sad (e.g., in the Mentos™and Diet Coke™example or the #IceBucketChallenge example).
• The message gives away free products (e.g., in the Hotmail™example or the Simpsons™movie example).
• The message gives advice that encourages ease of use (e.g., in the Blendtec™ example).
• The message is well targeted and contains highly relevant information to people (e.g., in the Hotmail™example).
If such factors are absent, other factors can still stimulate sharing, such as:
• People already have a long-term relationship with the organization (e.g., with a bank).
• The message is about innovative products that make people curious (i.e., with curiosity being a type of emotion; see previous factor).
• People have less knowledge about the product or service themselves and are thus more likely to rely on word-of-mouth recommendations (i.e., shares).
These factors illustrate which content can be more engaging or more sensitive for sharing and can be kept in mind when creating a viral message.
Besides content that is more likely to be shared, some types of people are more likely to share. Hence, the second goal implied by viral campaigns is to reach those people who are generally more willing to share the corporate message. For this purpose, an organization can start by targeting groups of people who are considered as credible sources and able to influence others in order to start the sharing process.
In particular, trendsetters or opinion leaders typically (1) have many people in their network to spread the message and (2) have such an impact on their network that other network members are more likely to share the message too (because people tend to listen to trendsetter). In terms of the theory on the diffusion of innovations (Rogers 2003), as discussed in Chap. 1, viral campaigns can be boosted by the
“innovators,” the “early adopters,” and (to a lower extent) even the “early majority”
(Thomas2004). Hence, an organization can try to reach these groups in order to indirectly reach the “late majority” and the “laggards” too. Synonyms for trendsetters are, among others (Kaplan and Haenlein 2011), (1) salesmen, i.e., who are very convincing for others to act; (2) mavens or evangelists, i.e., who are recognized as experts and like to share information; or (3) connectors, i.e., who have many people in their network and thus know many people to spread the message.
The present chapter particularly described the advantages of viral campaigns, for instance, in response to ad avoidance or ad blindness (Dobele et al.2005; Woerndl et al. 2008). Nonetheless, Table 4.5 summarizes the main disadvantages or concerns that are linked to viral campaigns.
A first important disadvantage reminds the reader that an organization cannot control its content anymore once the message is spread. This means that people may
change the corporate content before sharing, which can either be positive (e.g., more funny) or negative (e.g., when pressure groups or vocal minorities are active).
Secondly, as viral campaigns are characterized by voluntary sharing, they strongly depend on the people’s goodwill to share. For instance, as shown in Sect.2.2.1on community management, not all types of community members are active in shar- ing. Thirdly, the message of viral campaigns can be misunderstood due to cultural differences. For instance, humor or the notion of “funny” strongly differs between groups of people (e.g., a Muslim cartoon can be considered as funny or rather racist). Consequently, an organization should also consider such concerns when creating a viral campaign.