

Word of mouth isn't viral  - herdrick
http://blog.aweissman.com/2009/12/you-cant-make-word-of-mouth-viral.html

======
JacobAldridge
This really resonated for me. I've often thought through 'viral' aspects of
possible products, but they've always been 'A YouTube video' or 'A themed
game' kind of thing - relevant to the brand, but light enough for people to
pass it along. I've called that viral, but it's not (any more than a Facebook
meme, which I can ignore, could be considered more viral than smallpox).

Viral is Hotmail (and the other examples the OP lists) - when a person uses
the actual product, they cannot help but spread the message ("Sent via
Hotmail. Register now for your free account"). Great observation that I had
previously missed.

------
weissman
My intent in writing the piece was to completely disassociate any rate of
growth from the method, or means, by which the growth might occur - by
describing instead how that occurs and how word of mouth ("dude you have to
check this out) is very very different from virality (as described above,
"when a person uses the actual product, they cannot help but spread the
message"and "like a virus").

No real value judgment for or against word of mouth or viral, just that they
are very very different, and require different ways of thinking about apps
services.

------
wanderr
Assuming by viral we all mean achieving exponential growth without marketing,
then this article is wrong.

The company I work at has been seeing 20% growth per month for many months
now, and we don't seem to be meeting his definitions: "A user's usage of those
products - without anything more - markets the products themselves." We do
facilitate the word of mouth process by including a feature that allows users
to share with Facebook or Twitter, but there's nothing inherent in our
service's usage that makes users market the service for us.

~~~
gojomo
'Viral' does not mean "exponential growth without marketing". It means,
"transmitted from person to person like a virus" -- which might result in
accelerating growth, but the essential part named by the word 'viral' is the
mechanism, not the result.

Also, Weissman is speaking of whether a service is in-and-of-itself 'viral'.

There's the related but somewhat different idea of "viral marketing", where
some aspect of a marketing campaign is designed to get people to pass along
the marketing message. A shocker or stealth marketing campaign that's so
interesting people pass along its details is 'viral', even if it's for a non-
viral product like a blockbuster movie.

Your tool to help users tout your service is a mild form of 'viral marketing',
but it doesn't make your service 'viral'.

~~~
wanderr
I'm still having a hard time understanding the distinction. What is meant by
"like a virus" and how is that different from how our service is growing
rapidly due to word of mouth?

Are viral services spread "like a virus" because their use is automatic
promotion, like how having a virus automatically exposes people around you to
it? If users consistently choose to promote you because they are compelled by
how awesome the service is, doesn't that amount to the same thing?

~~~
gojomo
Every good product spreads at least a little by positive referrals. So is
every good product also 'viral'?

Not in the sense Weissman is talking about. Yes, if you squint, any positive
word-of-mouth is passed along vaguely like a virus. But then everything is
'viral', and the word has lost its value for distinguishing products that are
strongly and inherently 'viral'. Those that are 'viral products' are passed to
more customers by their design and mechanisms of operation, which is different
(and deserving of a unique label) compared to just 'good enough to remark to
friends'.

------
astine
I think that there is a distinction being passed over here: There is a
difference between a viral product or server, and viral marketing.

Viral marketing is where company creates a campaign that is of interest of its
own accord in hopes that it will garner attention and that attention will pass
on the the product or service that being advertized.

A viral prodict is what this guy describes.

I think that a conflation of these two ideas might lead to the confusion that
this guy is talking about.

------
twelvethirteen
This kind of implies that to design a viral product, you need to identify the
transmission vector. Every class of meme has a substrate. Genes have DNA,
lolcats have images, viral videos have youtube, bit.ly has twitter.

~~~
herdrick
What he's saying is that lolcat images and videos aren't viral. Looking at
them doesn't help to spread them.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I think he's saying that _talking about_ a great lolcat you saw isn't viral.
Reposting them or sending a link is.

I spread viruses because the virus makes me cough or sneeze. I spread jokes
and urban myths because they make me repeat them to others. Online these are
generally called memes or viral.

It gets confusing because he's not talking about funny videos, he's talking
about a business plan. If your business was putting funny images of cats in
front of as many people as possible for free then job done. If it's getting
people to use a service or visit a site then you need to make sure that _usage
of your service_ is the thing that's passed on virally, not the content.

------
apinstein
I have this argument a handful of times a year with various people. It's a pet
peeve of mine, too. Glad to see others blogging about it.

I guess part of it comes from the unfortunate use of "viral" conflicting with
"word of mouth" which kinda sounds like a way to transit _real_ viruses.

I can see why it's confusing for people, but I agree with you 100%.

