Viral Marketing vs. Word of Mouth
Written Oct. 17, 2007 by Tom Webster in Marketing with 3 Comments
Seth Godin notes an interesting exchange between a college student and his professor on the supposed existence of Viral Marketing, and notes that (despite the professor's position) that Viral Marketing is NOT the same thing as Word of Mouth. I certainly agree with that, but I am not sure that I am willing to settle for Godin's distinction that Viral Marketing is a compounding function, and word of mouth a decaying function. I think it really depends on what your position is on the function of "Marketing" in the firm. It is true that an ideavirus, as Godin puts it, spreads through a population logarithmically, not linearly, and does so with little post-launch effort on the part of the marketer. I also agree 100% that "constant harassment of the population" does not make something 'viral;' you cannot will an ideavirus into propagating.
Where I disagree with Godin is in his implication that Word of Mouth is ephemeral (he notes that it "amplifies the marketing action then fades, usually quickly") or somehow inferior to unleashing a true ideavirus (which he equates to "Winning the Lottery.") If your vision of the Marketing Function is to increase awareness, then perhaps I could get behind these characterizations. But if your definition of Marketing is the ongoing process of moving people closer to a "sale," then I am not so sure.
Missing from Godin's equation is the means of transmission. With viral marketing, it's easy come, easy go. Someone passes a meme, link or funny video to me, and I pass it along to my distribution list. Maybe I have been moved to action, maybe not--but I have transmitted the message. The message is meant to be independent of the messenger, and is propagated on its own merits.
Word of Mouth, on the other hand, relies much more on the ethos of the messenger. If a friend tells me to try a certain restaurant or product, I probably will. But I can be a complete teetotaler and spread a funny video from Budweiser. In the first case, though my friend may have only influenced a handful of people, those people may be closer to the sale, which is the point of marketing in the first place. The Internets are loaded with 'ideaviruses' that became the hot pass-around links of the summer--but can anyone remember the products or services they were marketing, or more importantly, did anyone buy them?
This is not to suggest that Viral Marketing is somehow inferior to Word of Mouth marketing--merely that they address the consumer at different points along the customers' decision-making continuum. And in that, I agree with Godin--they are different.
Reader Comments
Your 2¢, in chronological order — add your comment below.
Amen. The reality is being remembered and being remembered for what's being put out there are two different things... and even when people remember the product, how often does it result in a subsequent sale?
Sometimes we get so caught up in the buzz, we forget about the take-away content. If we're not building THAT reality, then we're just giving people bandwidth that heads nowhere... in terms of meaning, marketing and the reasons (sadly) we're all here.
Agreed. Both are great tools, but one has more to do with set-up, the other with the SALE. Word of Mouth is more deliberate, is an implied or stated endorsement and is generally delivered in the context of solicited advice.
Great analysis, and I'll add my agreement with those insights. Without getting stuck on labels, maybe part of the problem (in parsing any differences between WOM and "viral") lies in the control that's implied--but doesn't truly exist--in the phrase "viral marketing". Even what may seem to be a slam-dunk "ideavirus" still has its fate decided to large degree by sheer luck or other uncontrollables. WOM and "virality" can both be great when they happen; but for most of us marketers, our best odds for creating buzz--and sales--lie in pushing for every part of our business to be "WOM-worthy" for our consumers or customers, as Andy Sernovitz advocates.