“The ridicule is viral” the ridicule is about the ad which is making it viral by how it is spreading it. The success or “failure” of the ad would be determined by numerous possible criteria such as intent of the ad to begin with, by how much money was spent on the ad, by how much money was made from the ad, by how much mind share was gotten from the ad, etc.

I disagree completely. The ridicule is viral, the ad is a failure.

Among the first to write about viral marketing on the Internet was media critic Douglas Rushkoff in his 1994 book Media Virus: Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture. The assumption is that if such an advertisement reaches a “susceptible” user, that user will become “infected” (i.e., accept the idea) and will then go on to share the idea with others “infecting them,” in the viral analogy’s terms. As long as each infected user shares the idea with more than one susceptible user on average (i.e., the basic reproductive rate is greater than one – the standard in epidemiology for qualifying something as an epidemic), the number of infected users will grow according to a logistic curve, whose initial segment appears exponential. Of course, the marketing campaign may be wildly successful even if the rate at which things are spread isn’t of epidemic proportions, if this user-to-user sharing is sustained by other forms of marketing communications, such as public relations or advertising.

An ad can be communicated and distributed but doesn’t have to spread. If I see an ad and don’t tell someone else about it then it doesn’t spread, yet the message is still received by me.

“Is a phone tree “viral”? Or is it just communication?”

Yes seems like it would be. (answer to both questions)

I would say the House Party ad has become viral by ridiculing it.

Your definition of something being viral based on how it spreads is confusing. How does something spread in a non-viral way, if “viral” includes newspapers, written communication, and talking?

Is a phone tree “viral”? Or is it just communication?

“Promotion” I would consider to be what is done/sold/talked about more by the company itself. “Hype” I would consider to be done more by others.

I consider being a viral ad not by its medium, but by how it spreads. Word of mouth, e-mails, news papers, etc. Spreading like a virus. I was thinking about an add placed during the Superbowl. It is going to be viral almost no matter what.

Viral marketing on the other hand seems more like what you are writing about. Trying to have some hook that you think people will talk about or spread before hand. Trying to market by different means from traditional media. The success (however you measure that…another topic) is not known till after it is out there whatever medium it may be.

Good stuff.

I’m saying that whether or not that ad was meant to be a “viral ad” is irrelevant. Their intent was definitely to drum up interest in the ad specifically by having Jerry Seinfeld in it. Don’t confuse “promotion” and “hype” with “viral”… it was a television commercial with mainstream news outlets talking about it before and after it aired. Yes, it was also put online, but what isn’t these days?

I hardly consider an obvious commercial that was announced ahead of time to be a viral video. To me, a viral video or ad is something that emerges from beyond the mainstream, pushed to the surface in a meme or through the rumblings of the public. With most viral ads the idea is to create a video that seemingly advertises nothing but is interesting, and then reveal it to be more than what it seems.

Consider an actual viral outbreak. H1N1 started with a few people getting sick in another country, then got a little play on TV, then blew up into mainstream media crazy town.

If Microsoft was releasing H1N1 as a “viral campaign”, they’d set up a special day for it, send press releases to all the networks, brand 120 crop dusters and dump it methodically across the country, then film happily clear-skinned, ethnically mixed people looking to the sky and sucking back the spray. That’s not viral, that’s a damn assault.

Regardless, I submit that with the Seinfeld commercial their intent was for us to be amazed by how humorous and witty it was… they trumpeted it as a showstopper. While I found the ad enjoyable (I certainly thought it was more amusing than most people seemed to), it did not have the impact that Microsoft expected it to… which is why it got pulled so quickly.

They have lofty ambitions but are guilty of continually underestimating their audience.

I imagine that all ad companies now throw the word “viral” out to their clients as a selling point. “We’ll make a viral ad! The kids will pass it around the YouTube!”

Well I’m sorry, but just posting something on YouTube does not make it “viral”. And I know everyone loves to spout the adage about how all publicity is good publicity, but P.T. Barnum died in the 1890s.

For the record, I don’t give two shits about the Mac vs. PC thing. I’ve used both, and find both companies equally interesting and nauseating. But I will say this, when it comes to marketing, Microsoft always comes off like a doddering, unhip uncle who wants to “chillax” with the kids, impress them with his knowledge of Heavy D and the Boys, and drive them to the mall so he can get a contact high off of youthfulness.

I by the way thought the Seinfeld adds were brilliant. Don’t like the laptop hunter add so much.

And here I was thinking Coda was the best thing Cabel Sasser has ever done…

“Each event is sponsored by a leading brand and focuses on something cool that the sponsor wants its best fans to experience firsthand and share with their friends.”

That said, if we could tie it into a Three Options gig, we could make it look like we have some major corporate sponsorship. Sellout. Sweet.

Hey maybe Frank would fly out for this.

We could have a Three Options reunion and tape some of our performance and post it for the party.

I’m in! I think I still know the material.