FROM SUBSERVIENT CHICKENS TO BRAWNY MEN: A COMPARISON OF

VIRAL ADVERTISING TO TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Lance Porter and Guy J. Golan
ABSTRACT: This study sought to examine and define a division of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) known as viral
advertising. Representing the first empirical effort to investigate the content of, and ultimately define, viral advertising, this
exploratory study found important differences between viral and television advertising. The definition posited in this study was
confirmed. Significantly more than traditional advertising, viral advertising relies on provocative content to motivate unpaid
peer-to-peer communication of persuasive messages from identified sponsors. While emotive content has always been the key to
capturing audiences' attention in advertising, viral advertising relies on increasingly raw content for actual distribution. This
added reliance on titillation for distribution has a number of implications both for advertisers and the ultimate consumers of
advertising.

Recent media reports have heralded the end of advertising as

we know it. With the increasing penetration of digital video
recorders (DVRs), the New York Times and Wall Street
Journal both recently declared that the future of the 30-second
spot is in doubt (Manly 2005; Steinberg 2004). A current
Yankelovich survey (Wegert 2004) found that 65 percent of
consumers feel bombarded with too many advertising
messages, and 60 percent have a more negative opinion of
advertising than a few years ago. The same study found that
almost 60 percent of consumers felt that advertising had
nothing relevant to offer them. Media fragmentation is on the
rise with consumers having an ever-increasing number of
channels from which to choose. Network television ratings are
down, while television upfront costs are up for media buyers
(Thomaselli 2004). Increasingly the consumer is in control.
What's an advertiser to do? Many advertisers are choosing to
embed their products in truly compelling content. They are
going viral.
The pages of recent newspapers and trade journals have been
full of reports of controversies generated by so-called "viral"
content, viral projects out for bid, or the results of successful
viral campaigns from a wide variety of established companies
such as Toyota, Doritos, BMW, Burger King, Volkswagen,
Anheuser Busch, and Virgin. But what exactly is viral
advertising? How are advertisers using this technique? What
makes advertising viral? What are the creative consequences
and opportunities of the viral trend in advertising?
While the popular and trade press have recently focused
extensively on the practice and risks of "viral marketing," "viral
communication," "buzz marketing," "stealth marketing,"
"word-of-mouth marketing," "electronic word-of-mouth

advertising (eWOM)" and of course, "viral advertising," almost

no scholarly work has been conducted in this area, and no
study has focused specifically on the commercial use of the
viral concept from an advertising perspective.
This study attempted to define a subsection of eWOM known
as "viral advertising" and presented one of the first empirical
examinations of this new online advertising technique.
Through a content analysis of viral and television brand
advertisements, we identified the elements that distinguish
and define viral advertising and relate our findings to the
future of online advertising.
LITERATURE
What is Viral Marketing?
Steve Jurvetson and Tim Draper from the venture capital firm
Draper Fisher Jurvetson (DFJ) coined the term "viral
marketing" in 1996. They were describing the DFJ marketing
strategy of the free email service Hotmail, which involved the
tactic of appending messages originating from Hotmail
accounts with the tag line "Get your private, free e-mail from
Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com" (Jurvetson 2000). Using
this technique, Hotmail managed to exceed 10 million users in
a mere seven months. In comparison, radio and television
took 20 and 10 years, respectively, to gain the same number of
users (Pavlik and McIntosh 2004). Prior to launching this
campaign, Jurvetson had consulted his physician wife about
the anatomy of a sneeze, learning that each sneeze releases 2
million particles (Kharif 2000). Similarly, Hotmail was passed
from user to user, with each new user clicking on the link at
the end of an email they received.

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising,Vol6No2(Spring2006),pp.2633.
2010AmericanAcademyofAdvertising,Allrightsreserved
ISSN15252019

27

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Spring 2006

Helm (2000) used the Hotmail case to interpret viral

marketing as a method of both marketing and distribution,
describing viral marketing as "a communication and
distribution concept that relies on customers to transmit
digital products via electronic mail to other potential
customers in their social sphere and to animate these contacts
to also transmit the products" (p. 159). However, this
definition limits viral marketing to those products available
digitally. How can the viral concept be used to distribute
information about non-digital products?
In defining successful "viral communication," Welker (2002)
expanded upon the Hotmail example to include this
possibility, describing "strategies that allow an easier,
accelerated, and cost reduced [sic] transmission of messages
by creating environments for a self-replicating, exponentially
increasing diffusion, spiritualization, and impact of the
message" (p. 4). To use the Hotmail model successfully with
other products would require: 1) free products or services, 2)
easy transmission, 3) exploitation of common human
motivations, 4) use of existing social networks, and 5) use of
others' resources and infrastructure. Wilson (2000) added 6)
scalability to this same list of requirements for success in viral
marketing, stating that businesses should be prepared for
rapid growth if they are to implement viral methods.
Viral Content
Welker's (2002) "common human motivations" referred to the
required incentive for consumers to share or pass along viral
material; "Ideally, niches of needs and market gaps are filled
with funny ideas" (p. 6). However, Welker's conceptualization
only focused on those products or services available for free.
Gladwell (2002) expanded the viral concept to content when
he speaks of "stickiness":
In epidemics, the messenger matters: messengers are what
make something spread. But the content of the message
matters too. And the specific quality that a message needs to
be successful is the quality of "stickiness." Is the message-or the
food, or the movie, or the product-memorable? Is it so
memorable, in fact, that it can create change, that it can spur
someone to action? (p. 92).
This "stickiness" in the viral marketing context is what would
spur consumers to pass along viral information. Does every
campaign lend itself to a viral campaign? Rosen (2000) warned
that viral marketing may be overused as a concept to push
products that are not inherently viral,

As with other tools, there will always be those marketing

people who will use a new concept ad nauseam. Viral
marketing is a hot concept as I am typing these words, but I
won't be surprised if by the time you read this, a backlash is
being felt. As customers, and as friends of other customers, we
can fight the avalanche of these tell-a-friend e-mails, e-cards,
and coupons by using our judgment about what to forward
and what not to. There are some viruses you'd rather not catch
(p. 201).
While keeping in mind the dangers of overusing viral
techniques, others have also noted the negative connotations
of the word "viral" and wished to avoid using the term at all.
Thomas (2004) pronounced the term "viral marketing" as
"retired," preferring instead the term "buzz marketing." His
definition of the "ultimate buzz" involved providing
"exceptional value." However, what about those lower
involvement products that are closer to commodities that
cannot provide that unique selling proposition as envisioned
by Rosser Reeves whereby advertising messages focus on
features unique to a particular product? Traditionally, those
products have turned toward the more consumer-oriented
creative strategies of brand image, lifestyle marketing, or
resonance-type strategies.
Even with these reservations, "viral" seems to have caught on
with the popular and trade press. According to Wilson (2000),
despite the best efforts of many great minds examining these
methods of marketing, the term viral marketing has endured:
Off the Internet, viral marketing has been referred to as "wordof-mouth," "creating a buzz," "leveraging the media," and
"network marketing." But on the Internet, for better or worse,
it's called "viral marketing." While others smarter than I have
attempted to rename it, to somehow domesticate and tame it, I
won't try. The term "viral marketing" has stuck.
Focusing on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), Phelps et al.
(2004) conducted an important early study examining
consumer responses and motivations to pass along email.
Through focus groups, a content analysis, and intensive
interviews, these researchers recommended that advertisers
focus on "desires for fun, entertainment and social
connections" (p. 345). The following section outlines some
recent examples of viral advertising that have been widely
covered in the popular press. These examples seem to be
following Phelps et al.'s recommendation.

28

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Spring 2006

Examples of Viral Advertising

of the company's Web sites (www.allyourrooms.com) that

provides tips on cooking, decorating, and cleaning. A regular
television campaign is running along with the online
campaign, depicting the new look for the company.

Companies are now taking the lessons learned from Hotmail

and applying them to advertising content to create viral
advertising. In 2002, London ad agency Leo Burnett posted on
the industry Web site adcritic.com a digital version of a
television advertisement featuring a fisherman kickboxing a
large bear for a trophy salmon. The ad was so popular among
practitioners, the clip was soon forwarded beyond the
advertising community and to the general public, becoming a
cult phenomenon (Howell 2003).
Also in 2002, BMW spent more than $10 million on their
popular BMW Films series, where they commissioned
Hollywood directors to direct edgy short films featuring
established stars careening around the screen in (and often
destroying) BMWs. BMW distributed the films entirely on the
World Wide Web and promoted each film strictly through
viral marketing, attracting nearly 55 million viewers. BMW
Films were still averaging 80,000 downloads daily two years
after their release (Steinberg 2004).
Creatively, the films were a success as well, launching the
career of British actor Clive Owen (who was the only constant
in all of the films) and earning the creative team the Grand
Clio for 2002. More recently, Amazon used the same agency,
Fallon, and creative team, Ridley and Tony Scott's RSA USA,
to produce Amazon Films; short films distributed on
Amazon.com featuring popular actors showcasing products
available for sale on the site (Parpis 2004).
Burger King utilized their "Have It Your Way" slogan to sell
their new BK TenderCrisp chicken sandwich by introducing a
Web site featuring the "Subservient Chicken." Visitors to this
site were greeted by an actor dressed in a chicken suit and
garter belt who appeared to respond to and attempt to act out
any typed command. SubservientChicken.com attracted 14
million unique users in just under a year, and sales of the BK
TenderCrisp sandwich reportedly increased 9 percent a week
while the campaign was in full swing (Anderson 2005; Padgett
2004). The Subservient Chicken continues its improbable run
as Advertising Week recently printed the top ten most typed
commands to the chicken ("10 Most Popular Commands
Issued
to
the
Subservient
Chicken"
2004).
In the last few months, Georgia-Pacific has launched a tonguein-cheek make over of the company's decades-old icon the
Brawny Man into a sensitive guitar-strumming balladeer. To
seed the campaign, Georgia-Pacific emailed the site devoted to
the new Brawny Man to consumers who had signed up on one

Other recent viral advertising campaigns have not been so well

received, and companies have had to move quickly to distance
themselves from controversy created by the edgy content of
viral ads. A recent "unauthorized" viral advertisement depicted
a suicide bomber exploding himself in a Volkswagen Polo
outside an outdoor caf and having the car completely absorb
the blast. Widespread dissemination of this ad online resulted
in a large public outcry, denial of involvement, and legal action
from Volkswagen toward the ad's creators and finally an
apology from the ad's creators. In the apology, the creators
said they produced the spot independently on spec to get
attention for their creative agency (Croft 2005; "Fake Ad
Creators Issue Apology" 2005). Ford drew similar fire last year
with their Ogilvy and Mather-produced Sportka advertisement
depicting the car purposefully decapitating a cat with its
sunroof. Ford insisted it rejected the ad, and claimed to have
no part in its release (10 Follies 2004). Nokia also denied any
part in a widely distributed clip depicting someone using the
latest Nokia phone to videotape a cat swinging from a ceiling
fan (Carson 2003).
All of these examples illustrate one of the conceptual
difficulties of viral advertising: one can never be sure if the
content was created officially, as a joke, as "spec" work for
creative credibility, or as a piece of "unofficial" guerilla
marketing. The next section will attempt to use the definition
of traditional advertising to formulate a conceptual definition
of viral advertising.
Defining Viral Advertising
According to Wells, Moriarty, and Burnett (2000), advertising
is "paid non-personal communication from an identified
sponsor using mass media to persuade or influence an
audience" (p. 6). How is viral advertising different from
traditional advertising? For starters there is no paid media
involved. Viral advertising is typically seeded through existing
email lists of loyal customers or through official company
sites. In addition materials are often distributed through
independent third-party sites on the World Wide Web that are
known to compile viral materials (commercial and otherwise)
such as Kontraband.com, the Lycos Viral Chart, Viralbank, or
Punchbaby.com.

29

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Spring 2006

While traditional advertising is non-personal, viral advertising

is personal. Although the content is seeded as described above,
the intent is for the content to eventually become viral and to
be distributed by more trusted sources-friends or family.
Word-of-mouth communication has been found to have more
power than traditional advertising in that consumers receive
the information from more credible sources (their peers) than
from advertisers (Nyilasy 2004). Kaikati and Kaikati (2004)
described the practice of "viral stealth marketing," whereby
advertisers attempt to "fly below the consumers' radar" by
recruiting "brand pushers" to pose as consumers. These brand
pushers would then casually mention products in online
communities in an attempt to generate positive online wordof-mouth for those products. "By generating word-of-mouth
to create authentic experiences,' viral marketing attempts to
harness the strongest of all consumer triggers-the personal
recommendation" (Kaikati and Kaikati 2004, p. 9). While viral
advertising does not involve stealth tactics, advertisers still aim
for personal recommendations.

traditional and viral advertising are used to persuade or

influence an audience.

While sometimes not as overt as traditional advertising, viral

advertising, like traditional advertising, is from an identified
sponsor. Viral advertisers hope to associate the momentary
good feeling experienced from the provocative content with
the sponsor. Furthermore, while traditional advertising is
defined as general communication, provocative content is also
part of the equation for viral advertising. In order for the
content to be passed on to others, the content must be
somehow extraordinary. Viral advertisers up the quotient by
making the content emotional or funny enough to justify
passing it along to other users. Justin Kirby (2004), the
founder of the recently established Viral and Buzz Marketing
Association (VBMA) and CEO of DMC, a British firm that
specializes in viral marketing, stated that if the content is
provocative enough, the product does not have to provide
exceptional value. "It avoids the need to have a product with a
wow' factor in order to generate buzz. Instead, the viral
campaign's communication agent - often video-based
advertainment content-is the element that needs a wow'
factor...The focus is on campaigns that consumers want to
interact with" (Kirby 2004, p. 33).

METHOD

Traditional advertising uses forms of mass communication as

a distribution channel for its messages. While parts of a viral
campaign may incorporate mass communication, the viral
advertisement is native to the Internet. Often referred to as
network-enhanced word-of-mouth, viral advertising relies on
the Internet for its unique ability to proliferate. Finally, both

Therefore, viral advertising can be defined as follows: Viral

advertising is unpaid peer-to-peer communication of
provocative content originating from an identified sponsor
using the Internet to persuade or influence an audience to pass
along the content to others.
Since our study represents one of the first empirical
investigations of viral advertising, we investigated the
following research questions:
RQ1: Is there a difference between viral and television
advertisements in terms of ad function?
RQ2: Do viral advertisements differ from television
advertisements in terms of advertising appeals?
RQ3: Do the advertising appeals used in viral ads depend
on the nature of the industry linked to the product or
service?

This exploratory study represents the first empirical attempt to

define viral advertising. To test these basic assumptions about
the differences between viral and traditional advertising, the
researchers analyzed a total of 501 advertisements. This
sample included 235 television advertisements and 266 viral
advertisements. The content analysis was conducted by two
trained coders. The coders were earning advanced degrees in
mass communication and were familiar with the concepts
under investigation. In addition, training sessions were
conducted with the coders to ensure knowledge of the
concepts where the coders coded a number of sample ads in
the presence of the researchers.
The relatively new phenomenon of viral advertising required
the use of a convenience sample of viral advertisements culled
from an exhaustive search of the Web, several popular viral
advertising seeding Web sites, and from several viral
advertising firms' personal collections. These firms were
contacted after their participation in the first annual Viral
Awards, an international festival that recognizes the top
creative in the viral advertising field (now known as the Future
Marketing Awards). Unlike traditional television brand
advertisements, peer-to-peer distribution methods render
impossible an accurate estimation of the reach and overall
media exposure of viral advertisements. While several
traditional advertising websites offer databases of top ranked
television ads, there is no database that includes a similar

30

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Spring 2006

rating for viral ads. Consequently, all viral ads found through
these personal and online collections were included in the
analysis.
The television advertisements were randomly selected from
Advertisementave.com, an online database of television ads.
To avoid any bias in ad selection, the coders selected every
fourth advertisement starting from a random point in the
section of the site that is organized by advertising category.
The unit of analysis was the individual ad. Each of the ads was
coded for the following variables:
Ad length: The actual length of the ad in seconds.
Company: Was the company a member of the Fortune 500?
This variable was dichotomous, where a score of one indicated
that the ad was for a Fortune 500 company and a score of two
indicated that the ad was not.
Industry: What is the nature of the industry to which the
product/service belonged? For example, an advertisement for a
Honda car was coded as automotive. The industries coded for
included: food and beverage, travel, communications and
electronics, automotive, banking and insurance, clothing and
fashion, media and entertainment, household products,
pharmaceuticals, issue advocacy, alcohol and others.
Ad function: Was the main function of the ad reinforcement
or branding, call for action, or to provide product or service
information?
Advertising appeal: These dichotomous variables were coded
with a score of zero to indicate that the appeal was not used in
the ad or a score of one indicating that the appeal was used.
The analysis coded each ad for whether or not the creative
employed sex, nudity, violence, humor, animals, children, or
animation.
To ensure intercoder reliability, each of the coders ran a
separate content analysis of 10% of the other coder's assigned
ads. Reliability scores averaged .89 using the Holsti (1969)
method indicating intercoder reliability.
RESULTS
Through a content analysis of 501 advertisements, this study
underlined the differences between regular television
advertisements and viral advertisements. The results indicate
that Fortune 500 companies created 62% of the television ads
analyzed (146 ads), while non-Fortune 500 companies created
38% (89) of the television ads. Inversely, non-Fortune 500
companies produced the majority of viral ads with 60% (160
ads), compared to 40% by Fortune 500 companies (106 ads). A

2 x 2 Chi Square analysis revealed that this difference was

significant, (1, N = 501) = 24.77, p < .001, suggesting that there
was a relationship between format and membership in the
Fortune 500.
RQ1 asked whether there was a difference between viral and
television advertisements in terms of ad function. A 2 x 3 Chi
Square analysis revealed that this difference was not
significant, (2, N = 501) = 2.45, p > .05, suggesting that there
was no relationship between format and advertising function.
Both television and viral advertisements focused on branding
followed by providing information, while rarely using the ads
as a call to action.
While no real differences were found between the two formats
in terms of advertising function, differences were identified
between the two formats when it came to the use of
advertising appeals. RQ2 asked whether viral advertisements
differed from television advertisements in terms of their use of
different advertising appeals. While 5.1% of television ads used
sex appeals, 18.4% of viral ads used sex appeals. A 2 x 2 Chi
Square analysis revealed that this difference was significant, (1,
N = 501) = 24.77, p < .001, suggesting that there was a
relationship between the use of sex appeals and format.
Similarly, the results suggest differences in the use of nudity in
advertisements across format ((1, N = 501) = 10.96, p = .001),
as viral ads were more likely to use nudity (13.9%) compared
to the television ads (5.1%). A significant difference was also
identified in the use of violence in ads ((1, N = 501) = 8.84, p =
.003), as viral ads (26.7%) were more likely to use a violence
appeal than television ads (15.7%). Differences were also
identified in the use of animation in ads ( (1, N = 501) = 14.42,
p < .001), as television ads were more likely to use animation
(14.9%) as compared to viral ads (4.9%). Finally, the results
indicate differences in the use of brand identification ((1, N =
501) = 34.27, p < .001) in an advertisement. The results suggest
that television ads (83%) were more likely to feature brand
identification than viral advertisements (59%).
RQ3 asked whether advertising appeals used in viral ads
differed by industry. A series of 2 x 12 Chi Square analyses
were performed to test the differences in the use of each appeal
with the twelve different industry categories. The results
indicated that the nature of the industry influences the use of
some advertising appeals in viral ads. A 2 x 12 Chi Square
analysis revealed significant differences in the use of sexuality
in viral ads across industry ((11, N = 266) = 39.89, p < .001). A
further post hoc analysis of the standardized residuals greater
than 2.0 showed the significance originating from the

31

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Spring 2006

pharmaceutical industry (39.4%) and the clothing and fashion

industry (61.5%) being more likely to use sex as an appeal than
other industries (18.4%).
A 2 x 12 Chi Square analysis also revealed significant
differences in the use of nudity in viral ads across industry
((11, N = 266) = 30.66, p = .001). A further post hoc analysis of
the standardized residuals greater than 2.0 showed the
significance originating from the pharmaceutical industry
(36.4%) being more likely to use nudity as an appeal than
other industries (13.9%), and the issue advocacy industry (0%)
being less likely to use nudity as an appeal than other
industries (13.9%).
Similarly, a 2 x 12 Chi Square analysis revealed significant
differences in the use of violence in viral ads across industry
((11, N = 266) = 31.55, p = .001). A further post hoc analysis of
the standardized residuals greater than 2.0 showed the
significance originating from the media and entertainment
industry (62.1%) being more likely to use violence as an appeal
than other industries (26.7%). In addition, the pharmaceutical
industry was found less likely to use violence as an appeal
(9.1%) than other industries (26.7%).
A 2 x 12 Chi Square analysis revealed significant differences in
the use of humor in viral ads across industry ((11, N = 266) =
35.79, p < .001). A further post hoc analysis of the
standardized residuals greater than 2.0 showed the significance
originating from the issue advocacy (35.7%) and clothing and
fashion industries (30.8%) being more likely to not use humor
as an appeal than other industries (10.5%).
Finally, a 2 x 12 Chi Square analysis revealed significant
differences in the use of children in viral ads across industry
((11, N = 266) = 20.10, p < .05). A further post hoc analysis of
the standardized residuals greater than 2.0 showed the
significance originating again from the issue advocacy
industry (28.6%) being more likely to use children as an appeal
than other industries (9.0%).
DISCUSSION
Representing the first empirical effort to investigate the
content of, and ultimately define, viral advertising, this
exploratory study found important differences between viral
and television advertising. The definition posited in this study
was confirmed. Significantly more than traditional advertising,
viral advertising relies on provocative content to motivate
unpaid peer-to-peer communication of persuasive messages
from identified sponsors. While emotive content has always
been the key to capturing audiences' attention in advertising,

viral advertising relies on increasingly raw content for actual

distribution. This added reliance on titillation for distribution
has a number of implications both for advertisers and the
ultimate consumers of advertising.
What makes viral advertising provocative? What are those
"common human motivations" that may cause audiences to
distribute or pass along an advertisement? Judging from the
results of this study, viral advertisers appear to believe the
devices of sex, nudity, and violence are what motivate
consumers to pass along content online. Unlike television
advertising, viral advertisements are not subject to regulation
by the Federal Communication Commission. The "anything
goes" environment of the World Wide Web appears to
encourage viral advertisers to create violent and sexually
charged content presented in a humorous context without
overt branding.
Not surprisingly then, this study found that Fortune 500
companies were less likely than non-Fortune 500 companies to
use viral advertising. Considering the raunchy nature of viral
advertisements and the conservative advertising strategies of
these larger companies, this finding could be expected. Even
so, the number of Fortune 500 companies employing these
types of ads is still relatively high given the findings of this
study concerning the content of viral advertising. As consumer
control over media content increases and attention paid to
traditional advertising decreases, how will Fortune 500
companies respond? Given the number of recent press articles
about large-scale viral campaigns from established companies,
viral advertising seems to be a method they are turning to in
increasing numbers.
Across the board, all industries are using these provocative
appeals at equally high levels in their viral advertising.
However, this study did identify some important distinctions
between industries. Humor was employed at near unanimous
levels for all viral advertisements. Consequently, this study
identified humor as the universal appeal for making content
viral. Two exceptions in the ads examined in this study were
the issue advocacy and the clothing and fashion industries,
with those industries using humor significantly less than all
other industries. Issue advocates were also less likely to use
nudity and more likely to include imagery of children. Issue
advocates' promotion of heavy issues such as anti-smoking
and anti-fur usually takes on a more ominous tone. Nudity
and the humorous light in which nudity is portrayed in most
viral ads would seem out of place in an ad featuring the death
and violence typically shown in these ads. The use of sex and

32

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Spring 2006

nudity devices would also preclude including children. The

clothing and fashion industry also tended to use a more
serious approach to sexuality. Perhaps the clothing and
fashion industry sees sex as a more serious and direct appeal
for their product than other industries that use sex as a
peripheral appeal.
Considering pharmaceutical viral ads often feature pitches for
erectile dysfunction and contraceptive products, their
significantly higher use of sexuality and nudity than several
other industries is no surprise either. Far from the soft lifestyle
ads seen frequently on television for these types of products,
the pharmaceutical industry also seems to be taking advantage
of the lack of regulation online to more graphically illustrate
the features and benefits of these products.
The media and entertainment industry's higher use of violence
can be attributed to the dominance of video game
advertisements in this category. The actual content of the
games being advertised is often too violent to show on
television, so it makes sense that the gaming industry would
turn to unregulated viral advertising to get their message out.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The convenience sample of viral and television advertisements
examined in this study precludes the generalizability of these
results. The very inclusion of this sample of viral
advertisements in viral production companies' personal
collections and these ads placement on viral Web site
collections biases the results in favor of the most provocative
and entertaining ads. Likewise, the television ads inclusion on
a Web site dedicated to advertising also skews the results
toward traditional ads with higher production values.
However, with the recent formation of several professional
organizations dedicated to the field of viral advertising,
perhaps larger and more complete collections of viral
advertisements will soon be available to researchers. Future
studies should make use of a more random sample of
television advertisements taken directly from broadcasts as
well as these larger collections of viral ads, providing more
valid results.
Future studies should also seek to refine the definition and
further measure the impact of viral advertising on the
advertising industry and on the consumers these
advertisements target. This study identified some ways that the
viral phenomenon affects the content of advertising. However,
the more important question is, how does the move toward
viral advertising content affect consumers? How does using

increasingly sexual and violent appeals affect the ultimate

persuasive goals of advertising? Future experimental designs
can investigate the effects of each of these appeals on
attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral brand metrics. In
addition, the online nature of viral advertising provides an
opportunity for researchers to evaluate the effects of
provocative appeals in a large-scale, graphical survey. Other
more personal, ethnographic examinations of the production,
consumption, and ultimate distribution of such ads could
provide further insight into the motivations and impacts of
viral advertising.
This study provides an empirically tested definition of viral
advertising. Academics and professionals alike can build upon
this definition to explore this important new field. With large
technological and cultural changes looming on the horizon for
the advertising industry, viral advertising will be an
increasingly important force in the near future.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Mae (2005), "Dissecting Subservient Chicken',"
Adweek, 46 (March), 24-25.
Carson, Vanda (2003), "Uproar over Nokia Ad Video,"
<http://www.snopes.com/photos/commercials/nokia.asp>
(accessed on 3/29/2005).
Croft, Martin (2005), "Struggling to Keep the Viral Bug under
Control," Marketing Week, 28 (February), 23.
"Fake Ad Creators Issue Apology" (2005), New York Times,
154 (February), 999.
Gladwell, Malcolm (2002), The Tipping Point, New York: Time
Warner.
Helm, Sabrina (2000), "Viral Marketing - Establishing
Customer Relationships by Word-of-Mouse'," Electronic
Markets, 10 (July), 158-161.
Holsti, Ole R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences
and Humanities, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Howell, Nic (2003), "Catching the Bug," New Media Age,
(April), 31-32.
Jurvetson, Steve (2000), "What is Viral Marketing?"
<http://www.dfj.com/cgi-bin/artman/publish/steve_may00
.shtml> (accessed on 3/29/2005).
Kaikati, Andrew M. and Jack G. Kaikati (2004), "Stealth
Marketing: How to Reach Customers Surreptitiously,"
California Management Review, 46 (Summer), 6-22.

33

JournalofInteractiveAdvertising

Spring 2006

Kharif, Olga (2000), "An Epidemic of Viral Marketing',"

Business
Week,
(August)
<http://www.businessweek.
com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2000/nf20000830_601.htm>
(accessed on 3/29/2005).
Kirby, Justin (2004), "Getting the Bug," Brand Strategy, 184
(July/August), 33.
Manly, Lorne (2005), "The Future of the 30-Second Spot," The
New York Times, (March), 1.
Nyilasy, Gergely (2004), "Word-of-Mouth Advertising: A 50Year Review and Two Theoretical Models for an Online
Chatting Context," Paper presented at the 2004 Convention of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Toronto, Canada, August.
Padgett, Tim (2004), "What's Next after that Odd Chicken?"
Time, 164 (October) <http://www.time.com/time/archive
/preview/0,10987,995343,00.html> (accessed on 3/29/2005).
Parpis, Eleftheria (2004), "American Theater," Adweek, 45
(November), 14-15.
Pavlik, John V. and Shawn McIntosh (2004), Converging
Media, An Introduction to Mass Communication, Boston:
Pearson.
Phelps, Joseph E., Regina Lewis, Lynne Mobilio, David Perry,
and Niranjan Raman (2004), "Viral Marketing or Electronic
Word-of-Mouth
Advertising:
Examining
Consumer
Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email," Journal of
Advertising Research, 44 (December), 333-348.
Rosen, Emanuel (2000), The Anatomy of Buzz, New York:
Random House.
Steinberg, Brian (2004), "Advertising: More Networks are
Pulling the Plugs," B2, 3 (October), 2.
"10 Follies" (2004), Adweek, 75 (December), 4.
"10 Most Popular Commands Issued to the Subservient
Chicken" (2004), Adweek, 75 (December), 4.
Thomas, Greg M. (2004), "Building the Buzz in the Hive
Mind," Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4 (October), 64-72.
Thomaselli, Rich (2004), "AstraZeneca Slams TV upfront,"
Advertising Age, 75 (May), 3.
Wegert, Tessa (2004), "When Consumers Love Advertising,"
ClickZ Networks, (April) <http://clickz.com/experts/media
/media_buy/article.php/3343411> (accessed on 9/12/2005).

Welker, Carl B. (2002), "The Paradigm of Viral

Communication," Information Services and Use, 22 (January),
3-8.
Wells, William, Sandra Moriarty, and John Burnett (2000),
Advertising Principles and Practice, Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Wilson, Ralph F. (2000), "The Six Simple Principles of Viral
Marketing,"
Web
Marketing
Today,
(February)
<http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt5/viralprinciples.htm>
(accessed on 3/29/2005).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Lance Porter (Ph.D., University of Georgia) is an Assistant
Professor in the Manship School of Mass Communication at
Louisiana State University. He has focused on new media since
1995, when he built his first commercial Web site. His
research focuses on how new media affect communication and
culture. He holds a joint appointment with the Center for
Computation and Technology (CCT).
Guy J. Golan (PhD. University of Florida) Visiting Assistant
Professor Manship School of Mass Communication at
Louisiana State University. Golan's research focuses on media
effects as well as international and political communications.