Feed on
Posts
Comments

Viral-ness – the new effectiveness measure?

Oct 13th, 2009 by


Picture 6.png

Visible Measures publish this chart weekly – tracking the most watched videos online – which is effectively a measure of viral videos, although some of the very best weren’t written to be ‘viral’.

What piqued my interest was the presence of some advertising spots that aren’t at all new, as commented on by Abbey Klaassen in this article on Ad Age. In particular, T-Mobile ‘Dance‘, Cadbury ‘Eyebrows‘ and Evian ‘Babies‘… embedded below, in case you haven’t already added to the stats! Not one of these was written as a “viral film” in the old sense of the word. But they’re good enough that people are interested in watching them even after they’ve finished on air. And with over 200 thousand people watching weekly (since that’s what it takes to make it in to the top ten), they’re adding good reach and/or frequency to the campaigns.

The reason I ask whether this could become an effectiveness measure is slightly different, though. I’m sure people have used the ‘online viewers’ measure to prove the added reach/frequency or ‘eyeballs’ gained, but have they used it as a more qualitative measure of being genuinely great? Because lots of ads go into this top ten (Nike’s ‘today was a good day’ and Microsoft’s ‘Laptop hunters’ for instance), however few stay in the ranks for 20+ weeks – and that kind of lasting impact seems a lot more effective than any “500 thousand people watched it online” quote.

In a totally separate league, there is the work for Ray Ban “Never Hide” campaign – since it set out to be a viral piece – with all of the low budget limitations and the need to capture pass-on viewings; after all, this film didn’t have the advantage of being able to gain momentum on TV first. And it’s been repeatable, with the catching taking on new forms over time… so it’s a campaign of viral value, not just a one-off. I mention this as well, since it held in the charts for ages, and even re-appears again this year.

Whether written for TV, or written for online viewing, they all have one thing in common… The message (or explicit advertising part of the ad) is subtle – allowing people to enjoy something that is content, with entertainment value and a degree of “how the hell did they do that?”. Not a bad thing for us all to aim for in our quest for effectiveness…


Posted in Advertising, Digital | 4 Comments

  • eskimon

    Something that seems to be missing from almost all these discussions about measurement is what the brand set out to do with its communication in the first place.

    Rather than searching for a single, global metric, surely it would be more appropriate to measure effectiveness in terms of original, individual brand objectives?

    Many brands get excited about the number of views these films achieve, but millions of views only mean that lots of people have seen the clip – nothing more.

    As a metric, such 'reach' figures tell us nothing about whether the clip actually delivered any benefit beyond entertainment. There are occasions when entertainment is great – for example, it can help to build brand affinity – but that's only relevant if driving affinity was the brand's original objective.

    The recent excitement around the VW 'stairs' campaign is a great case. Many people (including me) initially thought 'it's great, but what's the brand connection?' However, it seems VW have been exploring behaviour modification as part of a broader brand initiative, and seen in that perspective, the stairs experiment is fantastic: it demonstrates that making something fun can be highly effective at inspiring new behaviour.

    The broader measurement topic is one we've been exploring too, so it would be great to get your thoughts and builds on where we've got to: http://eskimon.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/measure…

  • splaw

    I think this is absolutely right, but it misses something – the theory outlined in Eskimon's original post is based on the idea that all advertising and communications has a “message” to deliver to people. Which may or may not be true.

    I think this theory is spot on, but I'd take it a step further – ask not what the 'message' was, but what the business need/opportunity was – what is the brand/product ambition? And, therefore, was it achieved? How do sales reflect success? What was the impact on other brand measures?

    I'm firmly against having any single measure as the “yes/no” of success. It sounds great, because everyone knows if you passed or failed. But it's a false idol. We should be looking at a multitude of measures – surround our original business objective with evidence of success and opportunities to improve as the campaign builds… And, as I was thinking when I wrote the original post, why not include a measure of genuine engagement from the audience? That's a potential measure of capturing interest… amongst others, but not as the only measure.

  • http://eskimon.wordpress.com/ eskimon

    Aha! I'm actually with you on the 'message' point; in the original post I allude to the potential misuse of the term 'message', but I admit it's not very clear:

    “It’s vital that brands and their agency partners develop campaigns around what the brand wants its audiences to understand – although it’s a widely misused term, I’ll refer to this as ‘the message’.“

    I'll stick by that assertion – all communications must establish some kind of shared understanding, otherwise they serve no purpose. Communication (of any kind – brand or otherwise) is about stimulating some kind of change, but that 'change' can be as subtle as gently reinforcing existing perceptions, beliefs, or behaviour.

    So it makes sense that communications don't need a 'message' in the sense that many people misuse the term: we don't always need a slogan, tagline, or coherent statement – as long as we're clear what we want people to think or do as a result of experiencing the communication.

    And it's that aspect that the brand needs to clarify beforehand – what do we need people to think or do differently in order to achieve the business goal and brand ambition, and what role will communications play in driving that? This ties back to your comments above.

    So thanks very much for that challenge – it's really helped me to clear up my thinking!

  • http://eskimon.wordpress.com/ eskimon

    I've been ruminating your comments since I read them this morning, and I cam to the conclusion that the only option was a full blown post. So here it is:

    Why all advertising needs a message: http://eskimon.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/get-the…

    Thanks for the inspiration!