How many times have you been asked to ‘create a viral’? It has to be one of the hardest jobs going. By its very definition a ‘viral’ has to be so popular or so newsworthy that people feel the need to spread it. As a result most advertising virals are either based on crude humour or shock value. Unsurprisingly research is suggesting that advertising virals just aren’t working.
According to the Guardian, more than half of consumers that watch an advertisers viral are unaware of the commercial message behind it. Thanks to braodband connections and the greater potential audience for virals advertising budgets have lept from £10,000 per film to £150,000 per film. The number of viral films has also increased tenfold, according to the report.
However, the greater penetration and bigger budgets appear not to be having the desired effect on consumers. Viral seeding agency, Kotraband, have found in their research that 53% of consumers do not realise that virals are often commercial messages.
“The Kontraband survey identified a number of brands that had been successful with effective viral campaigns, including Tango’s spoof of Sony Bravia’s famous “Balls” TV campaign, Nike’s “Halloween” and the Nokia-branded “Cat” viral that the company claim they had nothing to do with.
“Poor examples of viral advertising cited by those surveyed include Reebok’s “I am what I am” campaign featuring controversial rapper 50 Cent and Virgin Money’s “Keep them uppy” viral game.”
The MD of Kontraband believes that 80% of virals just aren’t good enough for people to even consider passing along to friends.
It appears that marketeers are still to get their heads around the killer advertising medium on the web. Banner ads don’t cut it, the majority of virals are weak and search terms don’t provide the rich experience.
Guardian article
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
