Twitter response: "viral"

Earlier today, I tweeted this:

...and I received a slew of suggestions. Quite a few aligned, like so:


(@seanhussey, @petehealy)

The word "viral" sparked something in me, as Jeff and I had only recently been discussing (arguing) about what exactly it means.

My view-- which I believe to be fairly commonplace, but I could be wrong-- is that you can't make something viral. No matter how badly you want your message to spread like wildfire, it's up to the consumers/users/people that you're speaking to.

What you can do, and what I wholeheartedly encourage you to do, is create a message that people are compelled to spread. Give me the content that I not only want or need, but makes me yearn to propel it forward.

I'm not saying anything new with this. But this concept is something we (marketers, brands, etc) all need to understand before we move forward. Your consumers can see when you're trying to make something viral. It's a bit of a party foul.

As Sean and Pete say in their tweets, virality starts with content. You want the kind of message that your audience is aching to hear. If you are trying to repackage a useless message within a glitzy YouTube video, you have a systemic problem to deal with and should not be surprised when it lays there, sad and moldy.

If, on the other hand, you have a message that resonates... then "viral" will happen. Just as with an actual germy virus... you won't be able to contain the contagion. (That shall be the name of my first drone metal album, mark my words.) You can take credit for it, you can clap yourself on the back, but the only planning you can do is to work on the benefit you're offering the people you're counting on to talk.