Rubbertopia

Chris Quigley

Whenever we're given a viral campaign to seed we have a bit of internal banter as how well we think it will do.  And as a rule, opinion is always divided.  Kirk'll like it.  Ian won't.  Rory will think it's a viral turd.  Chris will think it's a viral work of genius . . .

And someone's always wrong.  They're wrong because in each case we'll be judging it on our personal preferences.  What one person likes isn't necessarily what another likes.  And when it comes to the internet, there maybe a whole of community of "Kirks" out there - a tight-knit highly internet active community of (for example) dog lovers who like nothing better than seeing a dog dance to Gangster's Paradise.

Luckily we developed processes not to judge campaigns on personal preference.  Three key factors in objectively predicting the virality of a campaign are understanding:
1) Does the campaign "have an audience"?
2) Is this audience also an active community online?
3) Is the content relevant community in a "pathetic" way (i.e. does it have pathos / does it connect in some way)

And once these three factors have been judged, we can plan our seeding strategy - making sure we approach the relevant audiences with the right "pathetic approach".  

Sounds simple.  Well, the theory is.  However, the execution is a little more challenging - mainly due to the fact that you never 100% know where all these "community influencers" are hanging out.  So for that reason our execution strategies normally include using our Viral Ad Network - which allows us to reach out to broad communities (and niche communities) at the click of a button, allowing us to flush out the lurking relevant influencer gorilla's in the mist.  Pathos is a strangely unpredictable thing to judge correctly, and the unobvious route is often the best route to viral nirvana. (more on that later)

(+ N.B. I apologise for that terrible last gorilla in the mist mention.  It's cheap I know.  No more gorilla mentions I promise).