Me: Virals need to be funny, rude or useful. Very funny, very rude or very useful. Web 2.0 useful.
Them: Good virals are funny or rude. Sometimes both. Once in a while, they’re just incredibly useful.
Me: Funny - remember that being funny is very, very difficult. Ricky Gervais is funny and Steve Coogan is not. Disagree with me? Agree with me? Then you understand the problem
Them: Funny. This is harder than it sounds. Funny means something different to everyone. Think Dave Chappelle. Now think Dennis Miller. Chances are if you think Dave is funny, you don’t laugh as hard at Dennis. And vice versa. See the challenge?
Me: A viral is not a video that gets emailed round. A true viral campaign is an idea that has a life of its own and spreads in the same way a virus does, prolifically and exponentially.
Them: A good viral is more than a video with a tell-a-friend button. A true viral campaign is an idea that has a life of its own – gaining momentum the same way a virus does.
If you search for “good virals” on Google, my post comes up top. Maybe this explains it. What do you reckon, have I been ripped off? (I'm flattered by the way.)