from http://campfirenyc.com/2006/11/09/viral/

I was once at a TV pre-production meeting and the director was going on about something or other, when the agency creative director interrupted him saying, “Let’s not beat a dead horse here.” The director shot back, “Let’s examine that proposition. What’s wrong with beating a dead horse? I mean it’s better than beating a live horse.”

I’m telling this story because of the repeated abuse of another dead horse: “Viral video.”

Let’s examine that proposition. Why do we now call any short marketing video, intended to be watched and forwarded by YouTube addicts, “Viral?” How do we know anyone will watch or forward any video so it goes “Viral?””

We don’t talk about a new film going into release as a “blockbuster” film, right? Or a just published book as a “Times bestseller” book?

So why do advertisers and agencies assume any short video tossed onto YouTube will go “Viral?”

This is not just an argument about semantics, but more importantly, methodology and effectiveness. The ad industry, for years, has made all sorts of false assumptions about TV commercials and their effectiveness; I believe the industry is now trying to apply those same mistaken assumptions to the “New Marketing.”

There are upwards of 30,000 video uploads and 40,000,000 downloads a day on the Tube. There’s no way a random video or two can be counted on to automatically go “Viral,” projecting a brand’s message. Nonetheless, we run into this misconception everyday. From lots of smart and talented people.

In the new era of consumer engagement, the real issue is what’s the big, persistently engaging campaign surrounding the video, moving the content? And what’s the big idea that drives that campaign? A video or two might be part of it (we used many in our Audi Art of the Heist campaign , but the real question is how are you engaging the audience overall so they look for your goddamn “Viral” videos?

Might this misconception be a hangover from the 30 second spot culture? Back in the day, you simply produced a spot and it went into a black box called the media department, and that black box – which created great wealth for agency networks – stuck the spot on some demo relevant shows.

If eight million people watched a show, the assumption was eight million people saw your 30 second spot. Simple. There are questions being raised now about this dead horse as well. And people began asking these questions long before “Tivo.”

It turns out that when you work in the New Marketing, a truly measurable medium with extensive metrics, and where viewer participation can be easliy judged, the old set of assumptions are no longer relevant.

I may be beating a dead horse here, but given the level of bullshit industry buzz about viral videos, I suspect not.