Comments on: Viral is not word of mouth

By: PRobecast #42: SNCR, Social Media Club, and live-Twittering events? | Tech PR Gems

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:53:47 +0000

[...] Council, large brands in a private group discussing blogging best practices– good?4. “Word of Mouth” vs. “Viral.” Two distinct terms or no difference?5. Web site plug: Media Bullseye6. Facebook apology; so good the [...]

By: Influencer Influenza? | Tech PR Gems

Influencer Influenza? | Tech PR Gems — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:35:07 +0000

[...] * Let’s forget for now that The Tipping Point was inspired by the AIDS epidemic, and that the concept of “viral” marketing is literally akin to the spread of deadly epidemics. Maybe Christopher Penn is wrong… [...]

By: Doug Haslam

Doug Haslam — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:11:17 +0000

I like the distinctions– I like Justin’s even better, to be honest, because I don;t see the need for “viral” to be reserved for “evil” definitions.

Also, like Richard, I’m afraid general usage has already made it too late for this argument to win.

By: Justin Kownacki

Justin Kownacki — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:32:25 +0000

I think of “viral” as word-of-mouth on steroids. It’s more than something interesting that I *might* pass along to a friend; it’s almost compulsory. It has less to do with permission and more to do with the un-keep-down-ability of the message.

As such, it’s as hard to create as it should be.

By: David Tames

David Tames — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:42:18 +0000

The viral metaphor is a good one, and just like in biology, there are bad viruses that kill us and good ones that we depend on for life. You say that “viral marketing does NOT require consent” and I would argue that viral marketing has various flavors, some with consent, and some without. Forward to a friend, that’s viral with consent. Hotmail, that’s viral without consent. The term viral has been used to describe the mechanism that goes beyond traditional word-of-mouth, but to associate “viral marketing” with bad techniques and not make the distinction of types of viral marketing within the category, goes against the origins of the concept and term as set forth in Douglas Rushkoff classic book, “Media Virus” later in Jeffrey Rayport Fast Company article, “The Virus of Marketing.”

By: shashib

shashib — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:07:55 +0000

I agree with most of what you said Chris.

In my terms:

Viral: May possibly have nothing to do with the product.Something about the message /medium makes you want to spread the word. Example the Bob Dylan video that was spreading virally.

Word of Mouth : You endorse it or express interest that the product is the key to your spreading th word.

By: Derrick Kwa

Derrick Kwa — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:45:49 +0000

I’m not a marketing expert by any means, but I’m reverting to Seth Godin on this. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/10/is-viral-market.html

Yes, there’s a difference, but I’m going to have to agree with Seth Godin (and Dr Mani) on this one. The difference in definition, in my opinion, is the extent of it. Viral is more like an extended “word of mouth”. And the point is, with the internet, it’s a lot easier to do this.

I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the difference is in the definition. Viral marketing CAN happen without your permission, word of mouth can’t, but the permission isn’t the defining variable in it, in my opinion. Viral can happen with permission as well.

By: Christopher S. Penn

Christopher S. Penn — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:30:46 +0000

@carruthk – viral was not possible before machines capable of self-replicating messaging came along. Word of mouth was the ONLY game in town

@drmani – respectfully disagree. With networks like twitter, if I send you something you think is cool, word of mouth lets you transmit it to a huge network in a fashion that still requires consent. If I write a tool that auto sends twitter messages on your behalf, using your identity, without your permission, then it’s viral.

@Ricky – sadly, I think you’re right.

By: Dr.Mani

Dr.Mani — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:09:05 +0000

I think the distinction is more on ‘pass along’ rates.

Word of mouth can spread from one person to another – and stop.
Or carry along further. The only caveat is they spread by
word of mouth (one person tells another) as against mass media
or corporation-to-prospect advertising messages.

Viral marketing messages do not stop. They spread, like a virus,
from one messenger to another, and then one or many more. Ideal
viral marketing successes would grow exponentially along the way,
getting more and more likely to keep spreading as the audience
hearing the message grows.

All success
Dr.Mani

By: Richard Mondello

Richard Mondello — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:27:09 +0000

It’s a good line to draw, but I think the distinction (for the masses) will go the way of the terms hacker v. cracker (http://urltea.com/2b65).

By: carruthk

carruthk — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 05:18:12 +0000

this is an interesting thing to contemplate – I think you’re right about the consent. Viral just happens whether you like it or not. But is word of mouth just the old fashioned way viral used to happen before the internet? Are you perhaps conflating word of mouth and permission based marketing communications?