Going Viral

Going Viral(Justin Bieber didn't make it on talent alone)

http://goanimate.com/videos/0tKmesUHZiQc/1 

Online Buzz 

There are three reasons for pursuing this question:1. To be heard: in the midst of information overload, how can we be heard?

This is a question for advertisers, promoters, politicians and everyday internet users. How can we become more efficient and impactful broadcasters on the internet?

2. To be aware: how does the content we see on our screens reach us? Is it all by merit? Popularity? Or are there ‘tricks’ which massage our experiences of the internet that we should be aware of? How can we become more critical consumers of the internet?

3. To be in control: how can we shape our presence on the internet? How can we influence how Web 2.0/3.0 serves us?

Why do we need to know why somethings go viral?

To 'go viral': to spread rapidly through peer references; the rate of hits/views rises exponentially; viral posts/videos are typically viewed more than 100,000 times. “Viral videos”: online video clips that gain widespread popularity when they are passed from person to person via e-mail, instant messages, and media-sharing Web sites. "Viral marketing": has emerged as the electronic form of WoM and involves the principle of passing on or referring news, information or entertainment to another person."Word of Mouth (WOM)": offline and online person-to-person communication.  

Definitions

Two Broad Approaches

Content Counts

• Main idea: the content of an artefact is what makes it go viral.

 • Focus question: what

makes artefacts go viral?

Method Matters

• Main idea: the online marketing of an artefact is what makes it go viral.

 • Focus question: who

makes artefacts go viral?

Content: a selection of opinionsWest, 2011:• Short title (3 or fewer words)• Short run-time (less than 2 minutes)• 'Irony' (something contradictory to social expectations)• Music

 Buzzfeed:• lists• quizzes (appeal to vanity - make the user look good)• relevance• catchy title• humour

http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/how-to-go-viral Jonah Peretti (founder of Buzzfeed):• engaging content: humourous, original, and/or controversial

http://socialtimes.com/how-to-go-viral_b22436 

- Emotion shapes virality. Content that evokes high-arousal positive (awe) or negative (anger or anxiety) emotions is more viral. Content that evokes low-arousal, or deactivating, emotions (e.g., sadness) is less viral. 

- - Activation drives social transmission (when a story evoked more sadness, it decreased arousal, which in turn decreased transmission).

- More emotional, positive, interesting, and anger-inducingand fewer sadness-inducing stories are likely to make themost blogged list.

What Makes Online Content Viral?Jonah Berger and Katherine L. MiLKMan

Criteria used to predict the success of TV ads can also be used - with some adaptation - to predict online virality:• enjoyment, involvement, branding• distinctiveness• celebrity popularity• likelihood to forward ('buzz')

o has LEGS: Laugh-out-loud funny, Edgy, Gripping or Sexy (Nealon, 2007)

Content: Creative Determinants of Viral Video Viewing

(Southgate, Westoby & Page, 2010)

• Use of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube etc.• Word of mouth: hearing what's popular from people around you. • Participation (Burgess, 2008): users participate by commenting, sharing,

'favouriting', making 'mashups' or their own versions

Method: Strategies for going viral

- the combination of online buzz and offline word-of-mouth (WOM) greatly effects the messages presented in online material- Lapointe calls this the "rock in the pond": users of social media are heavily influenced by their exposure to advertising in other media (ie. television, magazines, etc.)  

Method: Online Buzz & Offline WOM (Lapointe, 2011)

• Negative word of mouth (NWOM) can have a greater effect on customer acquisitions than positive word of mouth (PWOM)

• negative comments attain more diagnostic value of existing customer sentiments, while actual recommendation rates or reported PWOM are inflated or unreliable

• 3 key variables:o Magnitude of the message

 quantitative and qualitative distinctions between bad and good buzz translate into differences in the weight of the message that they carry

o Magnitude of the effect on individuals humans are sometimes more likely to remember negative

events than positive oneso Memory and spread of the message

negative comments are likely to survive more easily across time and space. 

negative information doesn’t only stick – it sticks longer

Method: Negative vs. Positive WoM

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM    If you know about this video, where did you hear it from? • WoM?• Social Media?• Recommender (e.g., YouTube 'Most Viewed Videos' list)?

Charlie bit my finger!

• Encourages people to pass on a message• Depends on a high pass along rate from person to person• Motivators:

o entertainment: fun, humour, games, quizzes, videos, songso greed: sweepstake enteries, free offerso charity: help an organization, sign petitions

Method: Viral Marketing

• Methods: face-to-face communication, phone conversations, text/instant/e-mail messeges, blogs, threads 

Advertising executive Dan Greenberg boasts he gets 100,000 views on YouTube for his clients' videos, or he doesn't get paid. Here are some of his strategies:First, get 50,000 views to get on the Daily Most-Viewed' page:• pay people with relevant blogs to link to the video• create fake conversations (forums) around the video• embed videos directly into the pages of MySpace users• create and exploit an extensive Facebook presence• use email and friends network

 Then, to reach 100,000+ views:• Focus on making title and thumbnail attractive• Release all videos in a campaign simultaneously, then use unique

tags to get only the other videos in the campaign appear in the Related Videos box.

 http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/22/the-secret-strategies-behind-many-viral-videos/

Method: more strategies

Site designers use Search Engine Optimization (SEO), configuring a website so that search engines will find it quickly and easily, and thus place it high in the search results list. Designers consider how search engines work, and tailor the website to be ‘search engine friendly’. SEO influences how search results are displayed; obviously, it can be used as a marketing strategy. However, it can also be used maliciously. According to a recent New York Times article, Montana blogger Crystal Cox was recently fined $2.5M for defamation for one of a series of blogs against Kevin Padrick, an Oregon lawyer. Cox used SEO to get her pages - which accused Padrick of unprofessional conduct, malpractice and embezzlement - displayed ahead of Padrick's own website when prospective clients searched Padrick's name.  “I have a gift for getting on top of search engines...” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/business/media/when-truth-survives-free-speech.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

Method: Search Engine Optimization

Ideas are accepted by a culture when that culture is ready for them. A better analogy is a forest fire: some fires, if the conditions are right, become monsters (Duncan Watts, in Thompson, 2008). The 'viral' analogy does work: ideas spread in a similar way to diseases, but the parameters need to be significantly changed - e.g., what takes weeks for a disease to do might take years for an idea to do (Bettencourt et al, 2005) [note: this studty considered the spread of scientific ideas pre-internet]. Holme and Huss (2011) disagree, but don't provide an alternative analogy. The analogy has some flaws. For example: • How do you recover from catching an idea?• Can people be 'immunized' against an idea? Apparently, yes: if people adopt an idea,

then switch to another (possibly competing) idea, they are effectively 'immunized' against the first idea.

• People who catch a disease isolate themselves; people who catch ideas actively work to spread them

(Bettencourt et al, 2005)

Is 'viral' even the right term?

- the 'content' of any medium is always another medium (ex. the content of writing is speech)- the medium shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action - medium itself, not the content it carries, should be the focus - a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but also by the characteristics of the medium itself

Marshall McLuhan: "The Medium is the Message" 

What medium goes viral most? Video! Why? Video is:• sharable: "If it doesn't spread, it's dead" (Usher, 2010)• participatory: viewers can comment, re-use, share; participation is a

major factor in the online spread of videos (Burgess, 2008)     Are there other reasons why video seems to goes viral more than printed material? What message does the medium of video convey?

McLuhan and going viral

The Law of the Few• some people are more important than others when it comes to spreading

ideas:o connectors: people who know and who connect lots of other peopleo mavens: people who love information - gathering it, and sharing ito salespeople: people who persuade others to accept an idea

• based partly on Stanley Milgram's 1967 'six degree of separation' experiment, which found that certain people are more 'connected' than others

 This is a popular statement of the 'Influentials' view of marketing, also propounded by Katz & Lazarsfield, in Personal Influence (1955), and Keller  & Berry, in The Influentials (2003). Duncan Watts refutes Tipping Point; suggests going viral is based on a culture's readiness to accept new ideas (Thompson, 2008).

Malcolm Gladwell, Tipping Point

There is now too much information on the web for humans to fully process and utilize. We need machines to do this for us.• Semantic Web:

o all information on the web written in a computer 'language' with universal meanings - e.g., consistent tags

o this lies behind the user interface, which is still in 'humanspeak'o Programs will now be able to access ALL information

more powerful search services recommender services predictive services

• Web 3.0: the services webo with A.I.-driven algorithms, the web will provide individualized information-

based services (Domingue et al, 2009)

Web 3.0/Semantic Web

The Tipping Point and Web 2.0/3.0

Web 2.0Connectors• 'Super-users' of social sites

like Facebook, myspace, etc.; have many more 'friends' than the average user 

 Mavens• 'Super-users' of sharing sites like

Reddit; bloggers "e-fluentials" (Kirby & Marsden, 2005)

Web 3.0Connectors• Programs that trace connections

between users and suggest more connections - e.g., friend suggestions on Facebook - only more precise and powerful than before

 Mavens

• Web 3.0 search engines: tailored to the user

Lerman and Ghosh examine how the organization of social media sites affect user activity on those sites. Understanding this will help us use those sites more effectively (Lerman & Ghosh, 2010). "Currently these systems blindly aggregate activities of all users in order to identify high quality contributions. However, since popularity and quality are rarely linked (Salganik, Dodds, and Watts 2006), this method is likely to highlight popular, yet trivial contributions." (page 8)   "[If we] are able to understand and model information spreading in social media one can weight the information properly which would be useful for e.g. recommender systems." (Holme & Huss, 2011, page 3) 

Making Web 3.0 serve us

• Balter, D. (2004). The Word on Word of Mouth• Bettencourt, L., Cintron-Arias, A., Kaiser, D., and Castilo-Chavez, C. (2005), The Power of a Good Idea:

Quantitative Modelin of the Spread of Ideas from Epidemiological Models. Accessed February 11, 2012, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0502067.pdf

• Burgess, J. (2008), ‘ALL YOUR CHOCOLATE RAIN ARE BELONG TO US’? Viral Video, YouTube and the Dynamics of Participatory Culture. To be published in The VideoVortex Reader, ed. Geert Lovink et al. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, forthcoming September 2008. Accessed from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/18431/1/18431.pdf.

• Domingue, J., Fensel, D., Davies, J., Gonzalez-Cabero, R., Pedrinaci, C. (2009), The Service Web: a Web of Billions of Services, IOS Press, Amsterdam. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-007-0-203. Accessed from http://www.inoverzum.eu/files/Tomaz_Cerne/Towards_the_Future_Internet_-_A_European_Research_Perspective_-small.pdf#page+224. 

• Durham, M., Kellner, D. (2001), Media and Cultural Studies. "The Medium is the Message." Accessed from http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FuB5qABkKU8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA129&dq=marshall+mcluhan+the+medium+is+the+message&ots=x5O6KJp-co&sig=7vsUUtmZCzOBvliZ9xy4zvS1Q3k#v=onepage&q=marshall%20mcluhan%20the%20medium%20is%20the%20message&f=false.

• Holme, P. & Huss, M. (2011), Understanding and Exploiting Information Spreading and Integrating Technologies, Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 26(5), 829-836. Accessed from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11390-011-0182-3.

• Jonah Berger and Katherine L. Milkman. (2011) What makes online content go viral? Journal of Marketing Research. 1547-719.

References

• Kirby, J. and Mardsen, P. (Eds) (2005), Connected Marketing: the Viral, Buzz and Word of Mouth Revolution, Butterworth-Heinemann (review by Giorgi Cédric accessed at http://www.market-in-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/connected-marketing-the-viral-buzz-and-word.pdf, February 3, 2012).  

• Lapointe, P. (2011). The Rock in the Pond How Online Buzz and Offline WOM Can Make a Strong Message Even More Powerful. Accessed from: http://marketingnpv.com/content/rock-pond-how-online-buzz-and-offline-wom-can-make-strong-message-even-more-powerful. 

• Samson, A. (2006). FORUM - understanding the buzz that matters: Negative vs positive word of mouth. International Journal of Market Research, 48(6), 647-657 

• Southgate, D., Westoby, N., Page G. (2010), Creative determinants of viral video viewing, International Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 349-368. Accessed February 11, 2012, from http://www.millwardbrown.com/Libraries/MB_Articles_Downloads/Creative_Viral_Potential-IAJ_v29n4_2010.sflb.ashx

• Thompson, C. (2008), Is the Tipping Point Toast? Accessed at http://fastcompany.com/magazine/122/is-the-tipping-point-toast.html, Feb 3 2012.

• Usher, N. (2010), Why Spreadable Doesn’t Equal Viral: a conversation with Henry Jenkins. Accessed from http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/11/why-spreadable-doesnt-equal-viral-a-conversation-with-henry-jenkins/, Feb 3, 2012.

• Watts, D. (2006), Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market, Science. Accessed February 3, 2012 from http://qssi.psu.edu/files/salganik_dodds_watts06_full.pdf

• West, T. (2011), Going Viral: Factors That Lead Videos of Becoming Internet Phenomena, The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communication, 2(1). 

References Continued