Viral marketing, a colloquial name given to a subset of social media marketing, is growing like a wild weed. Traditional marketing giants like Unilever and Comcast, to name a few, are increasingly active in using the SMM tools to promote their brands and interact with consumers. One has to wonder: is it just a flu or has the virus spread so deep as to become a reality?

I firmly believe we are on the way to a pandemic (sorry for the self-promotion), and SMM will rule modern marketing. Yes, we are infected (in a good way) and there is no vaccination. However, I still feel the virus is just showing its symptoms, and a few things need to happen before it settles in and becomes reality. Let me give you the reasons why I believe we will get irremediably sick, why that is a very good thing, and what I think will have to happen for us to get there.

There are plenty of reasons to explain why SMM will be huge. I know everyone has favorites, so I will dare to give you mine:

• Word of Mouth: Every marketer’s dream (especially traditional marketers) is for their product, brand or campaign to generate WOM. It is one of marketing’s basic rules for success. The best way to get the message through effectively is by having people recommend it to one another. The problem has always been the cost of generating high volume WOM. With the internet, this problem is pretty much solved. One example of this is bloggers, who have become a trustworthy source for information. If you get a big blogger to talk about your product, the impact this may have on sales can be greater than a regular TV campaign.

• Targeting: So far I have not seen a more effective targeting tool than the internet. Advertisers are confident their message is reaching relevant audience, which makes each hit more efficient in delivering a message.

• Engagement: With the possibility of better interaction with the audience, marketers now have the obligation to change the way they approach their target market. New marketing has to be engaging for the audience to stick with it. And by engaging, I mean it has to add value to the consumer either by being funny, instructive, informative, or whatever it is that makes it worth the audience’s time.

• Cost: Please bear in mind that by cost I don’t mean cheap. However, SMM is not exclusively for deep-pocketed advertisers. SMM can be ideal for any kind of budget. Advertising is now within reach of everyone, and for the first time quality will be what differentiates good marketing from average marketing.

It would look like infection is imminent. However, I think some things need to be accomplished for SMM to settle in as one of the most important trends in marketing:

• Involve Traditional Marketing: For SSM to become big, it is imperative that the big brands get involved with it, understand the benefits of using it, and help to further develop it. SMM has been making big efforts to differentiate itself from traditional marketing, but I fear this has also led to traditional marketers not understanding this new language and therefore not engaging with it.

• Metrics: The SMM community needs to agree on the way impact is measured. Just as traditional media’s metrics are standard (GRP’s, SOV, TRP’s, etc.), Social Media needs standard ways to measure the impact of different campaigns. We need to be able to tell advertisers how their money is doing, and they need to be able to compare these results both against what their competitors are doing, and against what other agencies offer.

• Academia: It is important for this new trend to start teaching and researching; to unify concepts, debate them, and generate new ones. Social Media Marketing can no longer be an empiric subject, and we need to make sure we get it into universities and colleges.

Well there it is; my vision of Social Media Marketing. Again, I feel we are infected, and it will keep on developing to be very big. But then again, the challenges are big and it is time for the SMM community to start having these discussions. I open it up to you to share your thoughts…

I stumbled upon an interesting post today that got me thinking. The post is titled “The Difference Between Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing,” and it can be found on the blog of Mike Kujawski. It’s not a new post, but it raises one of my favorite topics: nomenclature. I found it via a tweet by the author today saying, “Wishing people would stop confusing Social Marketing with Social Media Marketing once and for all…”

Back in June, Brennan White wrote a nomenclature post about the definition of viral marketing and described our viewpoint on the meaning of “viral” in viral marketing. Brennan notes, “To me, ‘viral’ denotes the specific distribution strategy of a piece of online media.”

Kujawski addresses a similar nomenclature issue. Rather than defining “social,” however, he clarifies the differences between “social marketing” and “social media marketing.” Let’s look at his definitions.

For his definition of social marketing, Kujawski uses a quote:

Social marketing is a process that applies marketing principles and techniques to create, communicate, and deliver value in order to influence audience behaviors that benefit society (public health, safety the environment and communities) as well as the target audience.” – Philip Kotler, Nancy Lee and Michael Rothschild (2006)

The Wikipedia entry for Social Marketing confirms this view:

The primary aim of ’social marketing’ is ’social good’, while in ‘commercial marketing’ the aim is primarily ‘financial’. This does not mean that commercial marketers can not contribute to achievement of social good.“

Kujawski goes on to define social media marketing, but the definition of that term is not the issue here. My primary issue here is the changing use of the term “social marketing.” Kujawski no doubt wrote his post to clear up what he saw as a misuse of the term social marketing. But, I’m not so sure it social marketing means what it used to.

In my experience (and I would love for someone to show me a contrary example) types of marketing are named for methodology and medium, not for their goal. “Direct marketing” is marketing directly to individuals. “Email marketing” is marketing using email for distribution. “Television advertising” is advertising using television for distribution. Each of these examples shows the adjective preceding “marketing” to refer to the method or means.

This, then, leads me to wonder why the term “social marketing” was ever used to refer to marketing for the purpose of social good. It is in contrast to the overarching (though unofficial) naming conventions of marketing types. By this convention, “guerilla marketing” would be marketing to or for the benefit of small groups of combatants who like to ambush a lot.

Linguistically speaking (and I dredge up my college days here, so cut me some slack) humans like to keep to set language patterns, even if unconsciously. Just think of the linguistic convention of putting “e” in front of things. It is not an official rule, but we all know that, much like e-mail, putting “e” in front of something means it takes place on the internet. If someone told you that eMarketing was something other than online marketing, you would likely be a little confused.

It is for this reason, our collective tendency to adhere to linguistic patterns, that I think the term “social marketing” is quickly moving away from the dogmatic definition prescribed in Wikipedia. An increasing number of people are beginning to use the term to mean marketing using social methods. “Social methods” casts a wide net and could encompass everything from street teams to viral marketing…anything where interaction, conversation, and other social elements are at work. It is easy to see how this marketing ideology differs from billboards which shout messages and commercials which are 30-60 second monologues whether you want to see them or not.

Personally, I prefer using the term “social marketing” to encompass various forms of new, conversation-based marketing. It makes sense…it fits the naming pattern that I am used to. I do not deny that the term has been used differently in the past, but I think the times are ‘a changin’ and people who blindly cling to their old definitions will quickly find themselves scrambling to redefine.

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.” -Revelation 6:8, KJV

As many of you know, I am an avid reader of Kevin Nalts, who writes on his blog WillVideoForFood. I’ve been following him since before I started this company, and I have discussed some of his thoughts on viral videos before. It’s been some time since I last mentioned him because, unfortunately, I only bring him up when I disagree with him. Nalts: if you’re reading this, sorry for that. Everyone else: I highly suggest you check out his blog and follow it closely.

In all truth, it is not Nalts’ most recent post, entitled Video Sponsorship Trends: “Cashing In” or “Selling Out”, that I really take issue with. His post is really more like the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Well, it didn’t really break my back, it just gave me the nudge I need to write this post which has been simmering inside me for a month now.

The Crux

The central theme here is the debate/argument over the relative virtues or evils of paid advertising (often in the form of product placement) that tries to seem like it is not advertising. If your favorite video blogger on YouTube talks about the new camera they are using, they might have been paid to do so by the maker of that camera.

(insert cheezy horror music here.)

How are you to know if it is a genuine product mention or a paid plug?

(insert confused face of an actress in an infomercial here.)

Many would have you believe that this situation represents a serious problem, tantamount to danger for the helpless, unsuspecting consumer.

The Views

Nalts’ article discusses another article written by Jennifer Hollett called Viral Video: Cashing In or Selling Out? I recommend reading it as well. The article brings forth different views on the matter. Nalts says, “It can help creators derive revenue, and therefore the quality of videos should improve. I think it’s great for brands because they can now access the audience in different ways than a pre-roll or a banner.” Then there is Kalle Lasn, editor in chief of Adbusters magazine and author of Culture Jam, who says we are already hit with 3,000-5,000 marketing messages every day. “I really don’t think we need 5,001,” he says.

This last view is tame compared to many that I have heard of late. As a digital marketing professional, I attend my fair share of web 2.0 conferences in the Boston area, and there are some times when I feel that I am almost not welcome. How dare I, a marketer, besmirch the purity of web 2.0! How dare I talk about how Twitter can be a powerful marketing tool for large companies! How dare I talk about the possibilities of hiring web video stars to create great content for your brand! I’ve heard people say that new media marketing is a black-hat endeavor. Frankly, I don’t agree.

The Spark

At this point the savvy among you are saying, “So Matt seems to agree with Nalts’ point of view…why did Matt say he disagreed with Nalts at the beginning of the article.” Fear not, we have arrived at the much awaited point of contention. Now that we have set the stage, identified the issue, and seen some viewpoints, we are ready to go.

At the end of his post, Nalts gives some predictions for what will happen around this issue in 2008. In those prophecies he says:

I wish there was a law that required film makers to disclose any paid advertisers, even though I know much of the ‘product placement’ is offered free by directors. Federal Express, for instance, does not often pay to have its boxes appear in a film. The directors want the film to feel authentic, and seek permission not pay from FedEx to avoid needing to distract viewers with a Garbagepatch Kids-like bastardization of FedEx (FoodEx). In the end, however, I feel like the video creator owes me, as the viewer, disclosure. If you’re getting paid to hold a Mountain Dew, more power to you. Just let me know, so I don’t feel like you’re being sneaky every time your camera pans a mall and I see logos.”

It is on this point that I wholeheartedly disagree. My viewpoint follows…

My Stance

I think that any law (or even regulation) that required disclosure of advertising efforts is not only unnecessary, but also counter-productive. I do not feel that the content creator owes me anything of that sort, nor do I label you as nefarious if I notice you are drinking a Coke. I will try to delineate my arguments here:

1. Squashing Creativity: I think that anything where content creators of any type are forced to disclose behind-the-scenes elements of their creation does nothing but stifle the free reign they might have to “go nuts” and create some really entertaining stuff.
2. It Doesn’t Matter: There have been a bunch of viral videos that we have all watched and we likely weren’t aware that some of them were paid plugs. I just learned from Kalle’s article that the Guy’s Backflipping Into Jeans video was a Levi’s spot. Now that I know that…nothing has changed. I am not angry that I didn’t know that before. I do not feel violated because a corporation entertained me without my express permission. I do not see the damage caused by these marketing methods (i.e. product placement, branded entertainment, etc…), and therefore I do not understand why there is such a fuss about it.
3. How Far?: How far would this regulation stretch? We all know that Tiger Woods is paid to wear Nike clothing on the course. But what about the random guy in the middle of the pack who is wearing an Adidas shirt? Maybe he isn’t good enough to warrant sponsorship. Maybe he is just wearing a shirt and the logo is there like it would be on any other average person. But, maybe Adidas is paying him. In this case we can’t know and we might be duped by marketers. So does this mean that under new regulations all sponsored shirts on the golfers would have to say “sponsored by: Nike” on them? If full disclosure were required in one form of advertising, wouldn’t it have to be required in all?
4. Good Will Out: I believe in the power of a complex system to fix itself. In this case the “fixing” will be rather simple. The content creators out there who are just marketing whores and never provide value to their audience will quickly lose that audience. It’s like evolution. Audience (attention) is the scarce resource and the content creators will have to compete to get that resource. Done correctly, the help of money made from working with marketers could help a content creator thrive. But if that is abused, the audience will dry up real quick, leaving you alone to wither an die. It is survival of the fittest. We already see it taking place with blogs. When is the last time you saw a blog worth a damn that did frequent sponsored posts? One of the fundemental tenets of the evolution of the internet is that it allows for a bottom-up flow of information rather than a top down. So, it a bottom-up world there would be no need for top-down laws.
5. Maybe It’s Better: I think there is tremendous potential in product placement and branded entertainment and other forms of so-called “sneaky” marketing. If Coke pays my favorite video maker so that he can put out a great webisode every week I am fine with it. Especially poigniant here is the possibilities for the extinction of the terrible and badly targeted TV commercials we current have to put up with. If Tampax pays to sponsor the “women’s interest” channels on various video sites, and therefore I never again have to see a tampon ad on TV, that would be worth it. If Viagra sponsors funny videos about aging and sex and therefore my girlfriend never again has to see an six ED ads during her favorite show, that would be worth it.

Conslusion

As always, I welcome and encourage discussion and – dare I say it – disagreement. As a new media marketer who believes wholeheartedly in Web 2.0 ideals, I am a little tired of being blamed for ruining all that is good about Web 2.0. I simply don’t see it that way and obviously there is a lot more talking to be done. No one really knows what works yet and what the future of marketing is going to look like. This is why we have blogs this…so we can learn together.