Author Archive

My New Understanding of an Old Adage

Recently, Viral Marketing has seen some bad press. From the Jupiter Research report to the LA Times’ recent lambasting of Dan Ackerman Greenberg’s article, bad press seems to be an inevitable companion to this nascent marketing style. I have been ruminating on and reading reactions to Greenberg’s post since the original article on November 22 and concluded that, even though I disagree with some of his ethical decisions, my assessment of Greenberg’s post is less critical than most.

I would like to say that the reactions to Greenberg’s post were spread evenly across a wide spectrum of opinion. If I did say that however, I’d be an outright liar and the only purpose of my lie would be to set this post squarely in the middle of said spectrum. That would be a nice confirmation of my sanity and perspective, wouldn’t it? Even though about 400 of the 469 comments on his article were very negative, including one particularly harsh comment from TechCrunch Editor Michael Arrington, I’m going to go out on a limb and praise Greenberg for his efforts. Now before you unsubscribe, stop reading and otherwise write this post off completely, hear me out. I promise I won’t argue that he’s a good person.

Let me just say that even in my experience tracking successful viral campaigns, I’ve never seen anything permeate the online community faster than negative news. More specifically, I’ve noticed that news travels particularly fast when it’s perceived by the tech community as a direct threat to free-will and the transparency of online information. Regardless of the “don’t feed the trolls” meme that probably should have been the thrust of most of the comments on Greenberg’s article, I think Greenberg is sitting high and dry behind his one-page “corporate website” with a huge grin. Regrettably, I’m willing to bet it’s the kind of grin you only wear on those rare occasions where your most vocal enemies unknowingly fuel your success.

Hopefully I’m way off-base, but due to the robustness of his suggestions and the lack of content on his information-gathering website, I would bet the farm that Greenberg not only expected this reaction, but that he crafted, courted and planned for it. Moreover, and here’s the point of the whole post so tune in, I believe GreThe Long Tailenberg read “The Long Tail” and executed Chris Anderson’s secondary lessons therein to perfection to drive his business.

For those of you who haven’t read or aren’t familiar with the lessons in The Long Tail, please read the following four sentence book report: The old ideas regarding the size of a viable market are wrong now that the internet has changed the cost of accessing markets in general. Now it’s possible, and in many cases advisable, to sell to many micro-markets in aggregate that, in a brick-in-mortar world, wouldn’t have been accessible en mass but, thanks to the internet, now are. Secondarily, utilizing the vast reach of the internet to magnify one, previously minuscule, target market large enough to support your business, can be a successful tactic. Also, Amazon was a visionary and overall solid business idea.

To cut this rambling post to a very fine point: Greenberg harnessed the predictable online reaction to his viable (if arguably unethical) viral marketing strategies article as a way to instantly market his services directly to the executives who think this kind of success-at-all-costs marketing is a desirable quality. In short, in 2,400 words or less and zero capital investment, Greenberg spoke directly to his key buyers who, thanks to the immensity of the internet, probably number in the hundreds or thousands. I wouldn’t be surprised if the kid increases his company’s revenue tenfold by the end of the year from this one article (how much revenue would you expect a web-based company with no real website to have anyway?). If my predictions regarding his success are true, I’d be hard pressed to think of a more efficient use of marketing dollars in the past year.

While I disagree with some of the individual suggestions, my hat is off to the high-level strategy that Greenberg crafted and executed. It’s not too often that you can promote your business so effectively and make the general internet community look sheepishly naive at the same time. That said, I think this whole escapade and ‘The Long Tail’ provide a useful lesson that many marketers (including some of my colleagues) will refuse to learn due to their desire to be seen as nice (notice I didn’t write “desire to be nice”). The fact of the matter is, bad press creates a unique and powerful level of buzz and, if applied correctly, can be a fantastic marketing tool. It would seem to me that with appropriate viral campaign planning and a library card, the old adage can still hold true and bad press can simultaneously be great press.

No Comments

Mack at The Viral Garden, has just posted an article that we at Pandemic Labs find particularly poignant given our own interest in the social media space and Facebook in particular. Aptly titled, “The Myspacing of Facebook“, Mack explains Facebook’s march towards “monetizing its users” (a very on point commentary for so few words) and his predictions that Facebook will repeat ‘errors’ committed so recently by Myspace. This entry is short and to the point and uses Paul (from HeeHawMarketing)’s quote to great effect, however I believe that it does come off as possibly more harsh than is appropriate for the reality of the situation.

It is clear from both his commentary and his abandonment of Myspace that Mack thinks that Myspace’s declining traffic numbers and plateauing user numbers are evidence of failure on the part of Myspace to cater to the community. Furthermore, he makes clear that he feels Facebook is committing, or has committed, these same cardinal sins of social media. While his argument and position are strong, I feel that there are some valid points and views not openly considered in this post.

To begin, the basis for his argument against Facebook is the assertion that Myspace is somehow failing due to the leveling off of its users base. I feel this assumption is dubious at best. At some point, the inquisitive reader might ask questions such as, “How many users does it take to be ’successful’ in Mack’s eyes?”, “Could this be a temporary leveling off rather than a sign of collapse?” and “Could Myspace’s leveling off simply be evidence that Myspace has reached the limits of the market for this particular type of social media outlet at this particular time?”. To be sure, I would LOVE to own a stock with a chart such as this (given that this alleged failure on Myspace’s part is evidenced by approximately a 35% increase in Daily Reach oMyspace 1 year - Alexa.comver the last year according to Alexa.com). Mack’s bold assertion of Myspace’s failure to “put the community first” seems similar in timbre to the sounds of people on CNBC arguing that Google’s stock was overpriced and failing while it stalled in the $450 range for three months earlier this year. I don’t know about you, but I was buying GOOG hand over fist at that point and have been handsomely rewarded on almost every day since. All stock analogies aside, it seems that there have to be a finite number of people in the world at any given point that have the desire or means to use Myspace. Maybe what we’re witnessing is this limit being approached rather than an overall grassroots rebellion against the monetization of the user base.

Additionally, Mack seems to ignore Paul’s assertion that the stepwise changes to Myspace and Facebook are orchestrated for maximum acceptance by the user base as a whole. I’m reminded of a similar situation as related in “Negotiation Bootcamp” by Ed Brodow of all books. Mr. Brodow explains how his gym tried to convert two of the four handball courts into places for more traditional lifting and cardio equipment. To accomplish this task, with a very vocal and passionate group of handball players at to the gym to contend with, the gym announced the conversion of ALL FOUR courts. In the uproar that ensued, the gym management “listened” to the the handball playing contingent and “decided” to only replace two of the courts since the handball players were so passionate about their sport. Brodow’s commentary shows that this gambit is a very successful tool for making an existing user base feel listened to and respected (and therefore unlikely to leave) while at the same time accomplishing the intended goal. Paul’s article makes this exact point very successfully in regards to Facebook and the new “beacon” platform. I agree with Paul that it is likely that Facebook is asking for more than it actually wants in an effort to appease and maintain the respect of the community. Mack doesn’t address this key point of Paul’s and it leaves me wanting to hear his opinion on the tactic.

A final point regarding Mack’s very timely is a point that Pandemic Labs has to constantly remind itself when designing media campaigns for our clients: The average internet user probably isn’t as tapped in or as radical-transparency oriented as a successful blogger such as Mack. I would argue, that most people are unfortunately NOT as thoughtful, demanding or picky as Mack when it comes to their internet experience and are absolutely fine with Myspace as it stands. As someone who personally shares Mack’s displeasure at the disregard for the community being exhibited by Myspace, I wish all users shared our view on this issue but realize this is far from the case. To use a cliche television example, American Idol is still one of the top rated shows in America. Can we really argue that the average person consistently requires or demands excellence and moral congruence from their entertainment providers?

No Comments

// Asynch Load, FB-JS SDK