moonwalking bears – update
Two weeks ago I wrote about how I liked the Transport For London ‘Do The Test’ campaign. And it seems like the Observer liked it too, because they did a half-page spread on it in last week’s paper (online version here). That’s pretty good column inches for an ad campaign (is this what they mean with blurring the boundaries between advertising and PR?).
But in the article, Fergus Adam from advertising agency WCRS (who created the spots), says that this kind of viral marketing is pretty much over, because people are less likely to forward clips and jokes.
Does anybody know of any statistics that support that statement, because this totally surprises me. I agree with him that clients asking for “a viral that gets 5 million hits” are a bit naive. It’s not that simple. And I also think that the word ‘viral’ still gets used to justify lower production budgets (”but it’s only for the internet”).
But if something’s good, surely it’ll be passed on, talked about and shared? No matter what platform it was originally made for. No matter whether it was ‘marketed’. Sharing has become such an easy part of communication that if you have a good product or make something that’s worth watching/reading/listening to, then I’m gonna tell my friends about it.
Surely?
2 Comments, Comment or Ping
Fergus Adam
I was rather misquoted in the piece in the Observer. My point was that you have to work much harder to make a successful viral these days. We’re obviously thrilled with the success of the campaign.
Dec 9th, 2008
grr
Hi Fergus,
Thanks a lot for taking time to clarify. Much appreciated.
But phew! For a second there, I was worried.
So I can only agree with you: it’s not simple, but a great idea like this will still work.
Having said that. If you don’t mind me asking: in your opinion, how much of the campaign’s success is due to seeding and how much due to ‘real’ word-of-mouth?
Dec 9th, 2008
Reply to “moonwalking bears – update”