Christopher S. Penn – Marketing AI Keynote Speaker

Viral is not word of mouth

Written by

Christopher S Penn

in

Warning: this content is older than 365 days. It may be out of date and no longer relevant.

Viral is not word of mouth

A bone to pick with my marketing colleagues. Viral marketing is distinct and separate from word of mouth marketing. Viral and word of mouth marketing are NOT interchangeable. Let me give you two examples of marketing.

I really like Matthew Ebel‘s new album, Goodbye Planet Earth. I think it’s a fantastic album, half radio drama, half space opera, and I gladly tell anyone and everyone I know about it. A certain percentage of people who trust my recommendations and have similar music tastes will probably go out and buy it and tell their friends about it, and so on. Ideally everyone in the world who likes Matthew’s style – whether they know it or not – will buy his album.

Word of mouth or viral?

Second example. I really like Matthew Ebel‘s new album, Goodbye Planet Earth. I think it’s a fantastic album, half radio drama, half space opera, and I’m going to write a Facebook application that will, when you add it to your profile, message every friend you have on Facebook. Permission? Well, clearly if you added the application you’ve given me permission to do whatever I want, so I won’t bother asking. As soon as any of those friends add the application to their profile, it will message all their friends, and so on.

Word of mouth or viral?

Word of mouth marketing to me requires consent. Yes, I can tell you all about what I’m interested in, but for it to go beyond just me requires your implicit consent and assistance in spreading the message.

Viral marketing does NOT require consent. The classic example used to explain viral marketing is Hotmail. Hotmail appended (and still does) a marketing message to every email you send, with or without your permission. You cannot opt out of it, you cannot change or suppress the message. It’s there and it spreads to everyone you message, and if they sign up, it “infects” their outbound communications.

These are more than semantic terms as well. To someone in pure marketing, they may be semantic, but to me, someone who is both a marketer and a technologist, they are different because the software development process has different outcomes. To develop a word of mouth application simply requires invitation capabilities in the software to allow you to spread the word. To develop a viral application, the software development process has to incorporate tools and functions to automatically pull and message all your contacts, ideally in as low profile a manner as possible so that by the time you notice, it’s too late. The virus has spread and moved on past you and you’re powerless to stop it.

If viral marketing as I’ve described it makes you feel uncomfortable, good. It should. Viral marketing is non-consentual marketing. Word of mouth marketing is consentual marketing. To the marketers who claim that viral and word of mouth are the same, ask this simple question: in any other context, especially the context of intimate relations, would you rather have the choice of consent or not?

Comments

20 responses to “Viral is not word of mouth”

  1. carruthk Avatar
    carruthk

    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?

    Reply
  2. Richard Mondello Avatar
    Richard Mondello

    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).

    Reply
  3. Richard Mondello Avatar
    Richard Mondello

    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).

    Reply
  4. Dr.Mani Avatar
    Dr.Mani

    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

    Reply
  5. Dr.Mani Avatar
    Dr.Mani

    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

    Reply
  6. carruthk Avatar
    carruthk

    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?

    Reply
  7. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    @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.

    Reply
  8. Christopher S. Penn Avatar
    Christopher S. Penn

    @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.

    Reply
  9. Derrick Kwa Avatar
    Derrick Kwa

    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.

    Reply
  10. Derrick Kwa Avatar
    Derrick Kwa

    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.

    Reply
  11. shashib Avatar
    shashib

    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.

    Reply
  12. shashib Avatar
    shashib

    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.

    Reply
  13. David Tames Avatar
    David Tames

    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.”

    Reply
  14. David Tames Avatar
    David Tames

    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.”

    Reply
  15. Justin Kownacki Avatar
    Justin Kownacki

    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.

    Reply
  16. Justin Kownacki Avatar
    Justin Kownacki

    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.

    Reply
  17. Doug Haslam Avatar
    Doug Haslam

    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.

    Reply
  18. doughaslam Avatar
    doughaslam

    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.

    Reply
  19. Influencer Influenza? | Tech PR Gems

    […] * 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… […]

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

    […] 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 […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This