Go Big Always

I think one interesting viral advertising campaign was the Burger King Subservient Chicken, although it was catchy, since it wasn’t based on passion for the product it doesn’t count. In the same area, In-N-Out burger and its devoted following and consumers that wear the clothes. I think you are right though, the key is to have great products, ones that users talk about and have passion for.

Hey there Sam. I agree that the viral/virus word certainly has a lot of bad connotations attached to it - especially for those outside of the marketing realm looking in on the term. I think the metaphor took only because it quickly conveyed that “I told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on and so on”. Ooops, I’m dating myself.

I like your adoptive word. It’s a great universal word vs. Seth’s “purple cow” analogy which again would only be understood by those who read the book. The product definitely has to be remarkable for people to want to talk about it - and it needs to stay fresh and relatively remarkable (compared to everything else it competes with) if the adoptive nature is to continue to work. I think Google was one of the best adoptive marketing examples of the last 20 years. I literally remember the day I stumbled onto it and I dropped Yahoo as my search engine, never to go back. It was simple - Google was faster and it brought back tons more in results (or it appeared to) - and then I was hooked. And I quickly told everyone I knew to switch to Google. And we all know the rest of the story.

Here’s to adoptive marketing catching on in true adoptive marketing style.

David

Maybe you simply want marketing that delivers value, irrespective, whether it is contained in the product or in the message?

Say, a health organization spreads the list of what happens to your body, when you drink a can of soda. Wouldn’t you welcome it, even though that wouldn’t be the exact offer of the organization?

That being said - now that I consider your point - perhaps a good marketing message can become a part of your product (as in the example above).

Thanks for this post. It is the idea of “adoptive marketing” that has been fueling my desire to discuss social responsibility in marketing. Thanks for giving me a good term for it.

As far as who is doing it right, I think you named some good ones…Apple in particular. I would like to see more organizations like non-profits adopt this mindset of “adoptive marketing.”

Love it!

“The best way to not suck is to not suck.”

Once you’ve got that out of the way, then perhaps marketing becomes more about encouraging awareness and much less about changing perception…

Right on, Sam.

Viral is one more “let me interrupt you” euphamism: decoded, it means that as a marketer I still believe I’m in control. On the Social Web, marketers are not in control — participants are. This does not mean that there is no role for marketing on the Social Web or via social media — there certainly is. My book (Social Media: An Hour a Day, Wiley|Sybex, due summer 08) is dedicated to adoptive (aka social) marketing. The marketing techniques defined in the book begin, oddly enough, with Operations. Great product? Thank Operations for giving your customers someting they will talk about all day long — check out Fred Reichheld’s “Ultimate Question.” Does your product suck? The answer is again found in Operations (as in “fixing it”) rather than Marketing (putting lipstick on it) in the hopes of “infecting” someone. What a laugh. Consumers are just a wee bit smarter than that, eh?

Most viral campaigns are great for the agency (awards and hi-fives all around) but do little for the business. Yes, some can change a perception (e.g., Sub Chick), and that’s great. Much better though is to make a sandwich that is so good, and so good for you, that you simply have to tell your friends about it. Then, go the extra step and offer it in setting where they’d really want to eat. That will drive your business.

As a marketer, focus on the experiences that drive adoption, and tear down the internal walls that prevent you from putting out a product that you believe in.

Excellent post, Sam, though I don’t share your antipathy for the term “viral” marketing. Without “adoption” and “emotion”, there would be no “viral” - to me it is just a descriptor for what happens when you get a great product that people try, use, love and pass on to their friends.

So many of my clients believe/hope that viral marketing tactics may be the salvation of their boring product, just as they thought years ago that the right TV ads or radio campaign would bring them back from the oblivion of poorly conceived or executed products - but that never happens. The sloppy thinking happens then - marketing is expected to atone for poor quality, and it can’t. It just points a wagging finger at it.

I agree with you but we need another marketing prefix like we need a hole in the head. I say that because every time someone creates a sub-division (usually because they have a book or presentation to push), we move further away from understanding what marketing (as opposed to marketing tactics) is. Marketing is everything that connects a business to the meeting of a specific customer need and the product has always been central to that even if many marketing practitioners and CEOs have overlooked that.

I think “adoptive marketing” is a good ambition, but to be more specific, i think “functional marketing” is what’s needed. Every effort should offer a functional service for the consumer/audience/interupted if you want them to care. Most would say, “well that’s what my product does”. OK then, if you’re going to promote the product, what’s a relevant extension of it’s functionality? Rather than serving one way communications, promote your product and it’s functionality through a service. If it’s a computer company, these can be as big as an add-on, such as free instillation, or as small as a digital widget - i.e., a link to used parts other registerd users may have.

In 8-ball billiards, you can’t be stripes or solids off the break until you sink the second ball. The same rule applies to marketing: you haven’t created a new customer until someone buys twice.

Viral marketing might bring people in the door to have a look around, but rarely does it create that second purchase.

Views, eyeballs, and traffic spikes are nice, but when companies want to create lasting customer relations they need to begin by creating products that don’t need to “go viral” in order to survive. Anything less is just instant mediocrity.

Great post, Sam.

I think “viral” was supposed to mean “word of mouth” and less “transferred via bodily fluids” originally. I like “adoptive” as a replacement. More puppies, fewer flu epidemics.

Word-of-mouth advocating should be the goal. “Hey, did you see this? You gotta try this!”

Pass it on.

I agree wholeheartedly with the principle that companies need to focus much more on fulfilling the brand promise than simply gaining eyeballs. But I think you need to separate semantics from execution. There are positive aspects of “virality” that are not necessarily manipulative, abusive or meaningless. To me, the word simply speaks to the concept of a message so compelling that it spreads exponentially. True, in execution it often signifies agencies doing stupid things that add little value to the brand or customer experience, but changing the name to “adoptive marketing” won’t make agencies any more thoughtfully integrated with product marketers. Their job is to earn attention.

And that’s where I think you need examples other than already established brands like Apple. Apple gets the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars of earned media any time they announce a new product. A new company doesn’t have that luxury. Even if they have a phenomenal product, they need to gain the attention of consumers to try it. Good viral marketing gains maximum attention at minimal cost. Whether the company converts that attention into revenue and loyalty is a different question.

I’d say the Obama for President campaign would have to rank right up there for successful adoptive marketing. The story in The Atlantic recently illustrates it and the earlier piece in the Rolling Stone magazine with Obama on the cover, does too.

Great post Sam. You have a knack for taking the wind out of conventional wisdom and forcing us to rethink what’s accepted.

I often disagree with my friend and colleague The Ad Contrarian but in this case he says it best, “We don’t get them to try our product by convincing them to love our brand. We get them to love our brand by convincing them to try our product.”

Adoptive marketing is the best strategy for long-term success. There are many tactics that can be used, “viral” being one of them but not the only one. Sales promotion is another. Direct Marketing has pursued this strategy forever. Direct Marketers like to say “The most important sale isn’t the first sale, it’s the second.”

[…] Viral Marketing is Bullsh*t. Adoptive Marketing Isn’t. Every time I hear someone use the term “viral marketing,” I cringe. I know it seems like just a word, but I think it’s a concept that misses the mark and perpetuates some half-baked thinking. […]

As always, this is a great post Sam!!!

I always feel as though product development is never taken enough into consideration as part of the overall marketing structure and process.

Apple always tends to be the best example of this for me. The obsessive nature of Steve Jobs in product creation yields final products that people love and almost instantaneously evangelize. Combine that with a solid and strong promotional plan and you can see why Apple has had the renaissance it’s currently experiencing.

[…] Go Big Always - Viral Marketing is bullsh*t. Adoptive Marketing isn’t. (tags: Blog Marketing viral web2.0) […]

[…] - Go Big Always - Viral Marketing is bullsh*t. Adoptive Marketing isn’t. “Now that we’ve all been bombarded on the internet, the notion of something being viral is […]

Sam - I like the idea of bringing some focus back on the product. For years we have been bombarded with the importance of building the brand, but to my mind the brand is a promise that the product needs to keep. If the product fails that promise, the brand is weakened (depending on its current strength, it may even be non-existent after a product’s failure to meet the brand promise).

Gia, word of mouth marketing isn’t exactly viral marketing:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/10/is-viral-market.html

Btw, I don’t think adoptive really passes the sense of what viral is (read Seth’s post about it).

You can call it thistle marketing, if you want

[…] Go Big Always - Viral Marketing is bullsh*t. Adoptive Marketing isn’t. (tags: marketing viral web2.0 adoptive) […]

“Adoptive Marketing” sounds like another way of saying “User Experience as Strategy.” Real strategy extended across the whole business, not just marketing strategy confined to the thinking of those on the sell side of the company. It goes beyond marketing or the product itself to include how you buy, activate, what else you use it with. Apple is a great example of adoptive marketing/UX as Strategy in part because many of its ads simply show the product in use. I recently reviewed three books that touch on these questions and now ask the question in my blog, Are Adoptive Marketing and User Experience as Strategy the same?

[…] product usage like bringing in a stray dog? Shouldn’t we be pushing for Adoptive Marketing? Marketing that people want, that leads to products people want? Viral Marketing is merely the quick transaction of ideas. But if no connection is made to the […]

I think the question posed here is valid–at what point does “viral” marketing become a fad that has burned out its usefulness because everyone has “been there, done that”?

Or again, as mentioned, if you’re struggling to get something adopted, “viral” marketing doesn’t work if the product itself isn’t up to snuff–or your company’s support of the product doesn’t meet the product’s potential.

I see the point, though, which is simply get people talking about something.

[…] Go Big Always - Viral Marketing is bullsh*t. Adoptive Marketing isn’t. (tags: marketing toread) […]

[…] Posted May 31, 2008 I have had to take a few days to digest Sam Lawrence’s Go Big Always post on viral marketing.  Don’t get me wrong, I was in full agreement with what he was […]

I guess I’m about to commit the sin of spouting off before I take more time to digest this very insightful post, not to mention the equally if not more insightful responses. In the vein of, “It’s all about the product” and the connection it creates, the question I have is whether it’s possible to have a great stable of products that are virally adopted, which is accompanied by average or even sub-average or even barely existent marketing/advertising in the conventional sense. And in my mind, a key exemplar is the Weber Grill company. I used to abhor Weber’s overpriced products until I bought one of their gas grills a few years ago. Shockingly easy to assemble, highly responsive customer agents, durable high quality…these are a few of the characteristics that have made me a raving fan, and likely the reason why I see so many Weber grills in so many backyards I visit (I regularly stalk houses in my free time).
And then there’s this product called the Weber Smokey Mountain, a premium smoker, and yet one that costs no more than about $200. This sucker is so “viral” that a fan base long ago created its own Web site, http://www.virtualweberbullet.com, that contains recipes, smoker lighting instructions, tips on techniques, a forum, etc. All this said, I can’t remember the last time I saw a Weber ad on TV or in print…or for that matter, when someone proactively talked about Weber over a drink. For these guys I think it’s ALL about the product.

Thanks for some nice insights, especially “market something you believe in.” Every brand I’ve ever worked for has had a zealot somewhere in the company. It’s just a matter of finding him/her.

One thing: Sub Chicken was absolutely born from the spirit of the brand — Have chicken your way. That’s what separates ads from viral, the latter being pure gimmick. I guarantee you they don’t use the V-word at CPB.

I’m missing the point of this article. The aspects you associate with adoptive marketing above are in fact the same aspects associated with viral marketing. Are you just attempting to change the term used to define it? Viral marketing relies on the natural inclination we have to talk about stuff that interests us, hense it retains “personal significance”. No one interested in something is forced to talk about it and so they “Control their own participation” and since the only type of ads that are mentioned are usually funny or peculiar they do in fact “improves their situation” in one way or another. This all boils down to one thing, emotions. This *is* viral marketing. I enjoyed the article but please, the mass has already agreed upon the phrase “viral marketing” and I’d rather not change it.

[…] Those who follow me know just how much I love the term viral. The next time someone uses these words, slap them in the face and tell them it’s from Sam. Want to make something sticky or viral? Work on your terrarium. Those lizards could use the flies and artificial reality. The rest of us really don’t care for your pranks. […]

I think the term came from the memetic’s lexicon. Meme is like gene, if you recall, but it’s still just an idea, thought process or cultural code. So in a sense the term adoption belongs to that biology metaphor. And it makes more sense as the product is a piece of sociological “technology”, which isn’t native to our memes.

[…] secondly, guess it’s me, but I’ve come to hate the word “viral”, actually I’m not the only one, and I’d love to see an ambitious online effort made to try to connect with potential […]