Stories in the media report a rash of enquiries about producing viral advertising following the success of videos such as Dove’s Evolution, Smirnoff’s Tea Partay, and Nutrigrain’s I Feel Great. While these examples are undoubtedly well known in our industry, I do wonder whether they may not be more famous among the marketing community than the general public. I also wonder whether they actually do much for the sponsoring brands.
Manfred Tautscher, Managing Director of Millward Brown Germany, recently proposed the idea that many viral ads may be better known among marketers than among their target audiences. He remarked that his friends – senior managers at different companies – were often sending him ads to look at. Knowing how much people hate to feel they are not keeping up with the latest developments, it made me think that the industry might be talking itself into using viral advertising simply because we see more of these ads than anyone else.
I can hear the conversation now. “Hey, Joe!” shouts the CEO, on seeing his CMO across the hallway, “Sanders over at XYZ Company says his guys have gotten great coverage for their new viral ads. I told him we’ve been doing that stuff for years, right?” Joe nods and rushes off to ask his agencies to prepare a viral campaign. After all, the boss thinks it is a good thing, so he doesn’t want to disappoint him.
Now, whether or not viral advertising is really right for the brand is another matter. The easiest way to get an ad passed on is to make it really funny or really edgy – the sort of thing you would be embarrassed to show your mother. That’s great for brands like Mountain Dew, but does it fit with Kraft Cheese or Gerber baby food? Probably not. So brands whose positioning does not suit the easy pass-along formula need to invest significant time and effort to come up with something that is compelling enough for the target audience to want to share it with their friends. But the critical issue is, will this exercise be worth the effort?
Judging whether it is worthwhile to develop a viral campaign requires you to consider three different questions.
- How many people actually see these ads?
- Will the ads be engaging enough to encourage pass-along?
- Will exposure to these ads benefit the brand?
To find out how many people might actually see viral ads, I checked in with my “Millenial Panel,” an informal sounding board of 18- to 24-year-olds who work at Millward Brown. Almost everyone interviewed—95 percent of the group—reported that they had seen commercials online. The most common way to come across ads was YouTube, named by 72 percent, while almost half (44 percent) encountered commercials while watching streaming video. About half of the respondents found out about ads from friends, and just over half – 55 percent – said they had sent commercials to friends and family.
This illustrates a key problem with viral advertising: Pass-along is limited to the social network of the people who discover it. The reach of many ads is limited, and only a few hit the big time. After all, only half of our MB “Millenials” reported passing ads on, and that’s a group that is presumably interested in advertising and enjoys fast and easy internet access.
I am willing to bet that a far higher proportion of marketers have seen (and remembered) Dove’s Evolution than have people in its target audience. Fifteen percent of U.S. women aged 15 to 64 recognized the ad. That’s impressive for a film which was not even intended to be released as an ad, but it is still a small minority. Of course, the incremental benefit to Dove and the Campaign for Real Beauty was essentially free – an infinite ROI. But when marketers deliberately set out to create a viral campaign, they need to be confident that the free exposure the ad will receive is sufficient to offset the cost of creating the ad in the first place.
Turning to the second question, what was the most popular ad among our 18- to 24-year-old ad vectors? It was an ad for condoms—a great piece of creative, and one that seems to be circulating far outside the country where it originated (Belgium). You may have seen it. A young father is in the supermarket with his son. The boy wants a big bag of candy, and when dad says no, he pitches a fit, crying, ransacking displays, and throwing himself on the floor. As Dad looks ever more embarrassed, the closing super says “Use Condoms.”
Another ad in circulation was the latest Sony Bravia commercial, which features plumes of paint shooting into the air around a set of drab (and presumably empty) apartment buildings. The coordinated explosions, set to the music of Rossini, provides a dramatic and colorful display which holds our attention and makes us wonder how on earth they achieved the effects. Another great piece of creative.
However, I think there is one small problem with both of these ads, and that brings us on to the third question. How many people will actually notice, much less remember, what brands are being advertised? The condom ad is not a generic campaign for family planning or disease control; it is an ad for the Zazoo brand of condoms. If you pay attention, you will notice the brand name after the “Use Condoms” screen, but most viewers will be too busy laughing to observe that.
The Sony Bravia ad does end with a shot of the product and the brand name, but for all the connection that is made, it might as well be a separate ad. I suspect many people seeing it are left with memories of paint exploding though tower block windows, floor by floor, but no mental connections to a brand. When shopping for flat-screen TVs, will people think, “Oh yes, the colorful one”? Let’s hope that the point-of-sale material features exploding paint cans to ensure people do make the link. Otherwise I am not sure they will.
Marketing professionals, on the other hand, egged on by a severe case of envy (where did they get the budget? why can’t my agency create ads like that?), will remember both the ad and the brand.
Luckily I am not the only one to be aware of the obvious flaws of viral advertising. A March 2007 survey conducted by Dynamic Logic in conjunction with MediaPost suggested that the majority of marketers share my view. Respondents were asked to describe the relevance and accessibily of viral campaigns to their brands using a 10 point scale. Where 1 described “a fad for the lucky few” and 10 meant “many would be able to do it,” 50 percent of respondents rated viral advertising 4 or lower. It is notable, however, that 24 percent thought that anyone could do viral, rating it a 7 or higher. Well, maybe they can, but the real question is, should they?
What do you think? Are marketers the ones getting infected by viral advertising or consumers? Can any brand use viral advertising to its advantage, or is it just for the lucky few?
Tags: Viral, Viral Advertising, Nigel Hollis, Millward Brown, pass-along, YouTube
(28 votes, average: 3.04 out of 5)
Loading ...
April 4th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Nigel,
I agree with your three basic considerations regarding the advisability of viral campaign development – although some elaboration may be in order due to the social character of the channel, the lean-forward environment, and the opportunity for a varied response to ad exposure.
Each of these factors can increase the potential—both good and bad—to influence consumer sentiments and behaviors. For example, the social character of the viral channel may influence receptivity to the advertised brand and message. We’re generally more likely to attend to and accept messaging from those within our social circle, and to see the message as personally relevant because it comes from someone like us. (Of course, that applies to the ad as well as to any commentary that accompanies it.) The social context would seem to work with the general lean-forward character of self-navigated and controlled media consumption. It seems to me that this would further increase the potential impact of the ad for any given viewer.
The possibility for varied response to an ad once exposed strikes me as a critical differentiator of viral advertising. Of course, any advertising holds potential to inform, guide experience and/or encourage greater affinity to a brand or product. Beyond this, however, viral advertising affords an opportunity to react immediately to the stimulus—I can immediately send it on and/or comment about the ad, the brand, or the brand’s competition. If I choose any of these courses, I’m automatically engaged in conversation about the brand in a manner which is personally relevant—with all the attendant benefits (and risks) of such discourse.
The by-product is that I have a reaction to the advertising that is deepened because it has been actively processed. While these reactions are not impossible with traditionally less personally involving channels—it seems that the conversation-inviting, socially relevant context increases the likelihood of this active processing. The deeper processing itself generates (or at least reinforces) brand-relevant material and provides a level of brand experience.
So, while reach, engagement and brand impact are relevant considerations for a viral campaign, the influences on and implications of these elements would seem to be different given the manner in which consumers encounter and can react to the ad.
Dennis
April 5th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Hi Dennis, you raise some very interesting points that do deserve a lot more thought. But here we go with the off-the-cuff response!
On the topic of receptivity, yes, the fact that a friend or acquaintance has sent you the ad is likely to ensure it is viewed in a positive light. Given this and the lean forward nature of the medium we can expect the ad to be viewed with stronger attention than normal - as confirmed by the CTV-1 study for online video versus normal TV viewing.
But I would see a fundamental distinction between video ads and links to online resources or utilities.
In the case of a video ad, does the increased attention heighten the potential for further interaction with the ad, i.e. send it on, comment on it or the brand, yes. But does this automatically guarantee the viewer (and the others they send it to) will respond positively to the brand - no. I think the basic principles of successful marketing communication still apply. The ad must ensure long-term, positive, mental impressions are linked to the brand in order to be effective.
In the case of web sites, links to online tools, or applications, I think the direct response nature of the environment makes it much more likely that viral communication will create a positive response to the brand. A simple “check this out” message from a friend will almost certainly cause the recipient to click on the link. The brand name may not even appear in the message but exposure is guaranteed once the link is clicked.
I guess this is a long winded way of saying that I think that sending a video ad is more reliant on traditional TV advertising principles for its success than sending a “utility” type message where trust and relevance are ensured because the ad comes from someone who knows you.
What do you think?
April 6th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Nigel,
I agree that general principles of effective marketing communications are still relevant with the viral channel. In fact, given the greater potential for attending that I suggested in my earlier comments, this underlying structure may be even more important to guide consumer reaction toward “…long-term, positive, mental impressions that are linked to the brand”–and provide some protection against consumer response (CGM) which works to the brand’s disadvantage.
Dennis
April 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Hi Nigel,
I very strongly believe that the basics of marcomm do not change with the coming of new media. In recent times, we have seen here in India some very interesting viral ideas like the ones for MakeMyTrip.com and more recently for Mentos - mentoshelpline.com. And, both these brands have used the internet for the buzz to multiply several thousand times; but, the basic essentials remain intact, including the key: An interesting and involving idea at the centre of the creative.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Hi Nigel and Dennis,
First of all let me say I agree with both of you.
Viral is like any other marketing message highly dependant on a strong creative idea and a meaningful link between the message and the creative carrier (whatever it is a video, game or something else). Perhaps even more than with traditional channels as the users are the ultimate judges of your overall impact.
In my opinion we have to think of virals as a good way to work with strong creative material and as a natural part of the considerations in the media-mix. Mainly because the participation of users can lower the distribution costs significantly, But also because campaigns can benefit from “the long tail” - views keeps coming in even half or whole years after the campaign was seeded as opposed to traditional campaigns.
Not surprisingly our experience tells us that there is a strong connection between having a high degree of user participation (advocacy, distribution, comments, ratings and blogposts) around a campaign and generating a lot of views.
At least the participation and pass-on level then tells us something about the impact of the viral. The main issue, as you both stated, is that impact and spread doesn’t necessarily mean benefits for the brand - it could also just be the case of a very popular carrier.
However if there is a strong integration between message and carrier this should help lowering the uncertainty, and participation level still tells us more than just a views. At least people took the time to pass it on, rate it or write a comment (comments that can be collected and made in to buzz-metrics reports for further learning about the perception)
We have to take the step in measurement from awareness to interest if we meaningfully want to state that we created engagement around a brand.
Therefore, I think is is very relevant to set up meaningful parameters - both qualitative and quantitative - to measure the brand impact of virals.
How many saw the movie, how many percent saw the movie and then passed it on to friends. Those are the minimum amount of information you want, but the options for measuring are endless. It could go all the way to how many saw the clip and then visited our landing page and then ordered more information. Specific parameters is of course highly context-dependant but we should generally expect more of our tracking on campaigns.
This leads me to my final point, the seeding and tracking of campaigns. Getting the material to the right people is critical for unleashing a viral spread as context is very important. Your 10.000 views on Surfworld.com might turn out to be worth more than the 150.000 enytertainment seekers who saw the clip on Youtube. At least if your are head of marketing at Quikilver. But only proper tracking can tell you if it really was…
Mads
April 20th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Hi Nigel,
I like your POV, it arived just when I had two clients ask me the question.
I am begining to think that we need to ‘follow the money’ in the advertising process and will then be able predict trends much better.
In the old model (when I working in an advertising agency as media director) we would never have sugested making an ad that gets no media commission. Passing up the 16.5% would have been suicide.
In the new model, if I am a creative agency competing with a media company for the clients budget, it is my business objective to get more of the budget into creative and production than actual media exposure.
In fact, if I can convince the client to spend all his budget in making the ad, and none in the media I have achieved the most sucessful solution in terms of my business objectives.
No wonder agencies are pushing for this in conferences and client meetings. Amazingly the marketers does not realise the vested interest agencies have in this. Sounds like they are getting massive savings on their media budget (One exposure on a website and no need for more media budgets).
(This would be a new one for Heath to argue. Rather than saying ads with no attention are best he can argue that ads which did not even appear are best because they get the same result as ads that get no attention).
More serious though: We need to know where the agencies make their best money because this is what they will be promoting to their clients. As things stand they make their worst margins if the client makes only one ad and flight it on conventional media since they get nothing out of the media budget.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:29 am
Hi Mads, Devang and Erik,
Thanks for your comments and apologies for not acknowledging them sooner. Presentations and a conference in Paris distracted me for a while.
Mads, you suggest that pass along is a sign of engagement and that if an ad is well branded then it will be worthwhile. Could not agree more but how many people seem to think viral ads don’t need to be branded because they are so engaging people will remember the brand as a result. Not so, in fact it makes it even more likely people will forget. We had a lively debate at the conference about the Sony Bravia “Paint” ad. An ad agency planner suggesting that the backdrop of the Glasgow housing estate was a poor choice and a researcher saying the ad achieved strong impact. She did, however, admit that the brand-linkage was an area of concern but that the client chose to set the ad loose anyway. The discussion did confirm that they tried to close the loop with in-store activity.
To your point about seeding and tracking, I agree again. It is well worth trying to identify where brand afficianados hang out online in order to give the ad a kickstart. As to tracking we do add recognition questions to our tracking studies to track the progress of viral ads but I suspect we do not leave them on long enough. Maybe we should check back in after a year to see how much more spread there has been.
Erik, I can see that your explorations of the world of creative and media agencies is giving you a jaundiced view of the world! However, I am beginning to believe that many business objectives - at the client as well as the agency - are simply not aligned with what might make the brand successful and profitable, i.e. long-term business success. A topic for a blog post I guess.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 am
see as a consumer we want something interesting and fun to watch regardless it comes from marketing agency or amateur broadcaster. interestingly, recent example shows , marketing agency has lot to catch up to survive in highly volatile market.