Word of mouth isn't viral | Hacker News Reader

Word of mouth isn't viral

blog.aweissman.com

21 pointsherdrick12 comments

This really resonated for me. I've often thought through 'viral' aspects of possible products, but they've always been 'A YouTube video' or 'A themed game' kind of thing - relevant to the brand, but light enough for people to pass it along. I've called that viral, but it's not (any more than a Facebook meme, which I can ignore, could be considered more viral than smallpox).

Viral is Hotmail (and the other examples the OP lists) - when a person uses the actual product, they cannot help but spread the message ("Sent via Hotmail. Register now for your free account"). Great observation that I had previously missed.

My intent in writing the piece was to completely disassociate any rate of growth from the method, or means, by which the growth might occur - by describing instead how that occurs and how word of mouth ("dude you have to check this out) is very very different from virality (as described above, "when a person uses the actual product, they cannot help but spread the message"and "like a virus").

No real value judgment for or against word of mouth or viral, just that they are very very different, and require different ways of thinking about apps services.

Assuming by viral we all mean achieving exponential growth without marketing, then this article is wrong.

The company I work at has been seeing 20% growth per month for many months now, and we don't seem to be meeting his definitions: "A user's usage of those products - without anything more - markets the products themselves." We do facilitate the word of mouth process by including a feature that allows users to share with Facebook or Twitter, but there's nothing inherent in our service's usage that makes users market the service for us.

Assuming by viral we all mean achieving exponential growth without marketing

Don't assume that. Viral is a class of mechanisms and is orthogonal to growth rate, not a descriptive term for growth that means "good".

'Viral' does not mean "exponential growth without marketing". It means, "transmitted from person to person like a virus" -- which might result in accelerating growth, but the essential part named by the word 'viral' is the mechanism, not the result.

Also, Weissman is speaking of whether a service is in-and-of-itself 'viral'.

There's the related but somewhat different idea of "viral marketing", where some aspect of a marketing campaign is designed to get people to pass along the marketing message. A shocker or stealth marketing campaign that's so interesting people pass along its details is 'viral', even if it's for a non-viral product like a blockbuster movie.

Your tool to help users tout your service is a mild form of 'viral marketing', but it doesn't make your service 'viral'.

I'm still having a hard time understanding the distinction. What is meant by "like a virus" and how is that different from how our service is growing rapidly due to word of mouth?

Are viral services spread "like a virus" because their use is automatic promotion, like how having a virus automatically exposes people around you to it? If users consistently choose to promote you because they are compelled by how awesome the service is, doesn't that amount to the same thing?

Every good product spreads at least a little by positive referrals. So is every good product also 'viral'?

Not in the sense Weissman is talking about. Yes, if you squint, any positive word-of-mouth is passed along vaguely like a virus. But then everything is 'viral', and the word has lost its value for distinguishing products that are strongly and inherently 'viral'. Those that are 'viral products' are passed to more customers by their design and mechanisms of operation, which is different (and deserving of a unique label) compared to just 'good enough to remark to friends'.

I think that there is a distinction being passed over here: There is a difference between a viral product or server, and viral marketing.

Viral marketing is where company creates a campaign that is of interest of its own accord in hopes that it will garner attention and that attention will pass on the the product or service that being advertized.

A viral prodict is what this guy describes.

I think that a conflation of these two ideas might lead to the confusion that this guy is talking about.

This kind of implies that to design a viral product, you need to identify the transmission vector. Every class of meme has a substrate. Genes have DNA, lolcats have images, viral videos have youtube, bit.ly has twitter.

What he's saying is that lolcat images and videos aren't viral. Looking at them doesn't help to spread them.

I think he's saying that talking about a great lolcat you saw isn't viral. Reposting them or sending a link is.

I spread viruses because the virus makes me cough or sneeze. I spread jokes and urban myths because they make me repeat them to others. Online these are generally called memes or viral.

It gets confusing because he's not talking about funny videos, he's talking about a business plan. If your business was putting funny images of cats in front of as many people as possible for free then job done. If it's getting people to use a service or visit a site then you need to make sure that usage of your service is the thing that's passed on virally, not the content.

I have this argument a handful of times a year with various people. It's a pet peeve of mine, too. Glad to see others blogging about it.

I guess part of it comes from the unfortunate use of "viral" conflicting with "word of mouth" which kinda sounds like a way to transit real viruses.

I can see why it's confusing for people, but I agree with you 100%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com