• by Lydia Loizides , Op-Ed Contributor, January 31, 2007

I have a simple question, one that can or cannot be answered: did The Heidies actually help Diesel sell more jeans? If anyone from Diesel would like to offer up the answer, I would welcome it!

Which brings me to today's philosophical technology/content/brand question: what is the true value of 15 MB of fame?  The jury is still out, but I am leaning toward the not-too-much.

Now having said that, if we look at the essence of what these types of online viral campaigns are trying to achieve, we may be able to predict the successful from the not-so-successful.  How? Well, I am offering that we base it on one simple metric: communication efficacy. What that means is,  how effective the campaign is at communicating valuable aspects of the product or service that will make a prospect want to buy or try.  Let's try a couple:

Nike Juice 321 -- Videos of golf balls being projected at objects. As a golfer, I get this.  I hit it, it soars, I nail the green. I feel the power, the speed, and the accuracy of the golf ball -- all communicated through a simple 15-second video that shows the absurd. Will I try the product? You bet! I will do anything for an extra 20 yards on the fairway.

Virgin Money -- Beautifully choreographed and shot, and boy, can that lady dance but... after clicking on Yes for more content for the third time, I was watching the clock to see how much time I had left to go. And yes, while "things get more exciting when you say yes," I have no idea how money, credit cards, and mortgages and a ballerina with a chain saw relate to Virgin's money products -- but I am open to explanations and or suggestions.

Now I could go on for pages, but what I want to really say is this: viral should mean communicating something of the products' value to the customer. I am simply not impressed by some of the metrics of success that are being touted by agencies (or clients, for that matter) like page views, or games played or length of sessions. That may have mattered in 2002, but in 2007 we need to focus on business metrics like conversions, units sold, opt-ins, etc. Maybe I am just an old-fashioned realist -- but unless 15 MB translates to noticeable percentage increases in revenue, frankly, I am just not interested. And neither should you be. Agree or disagree? You tell me.

Of note, this one example comes from the annals of MarketingSherpa that I feel is worth thinking about.

SBC -- the mySBC eBill Service campaign. The concept was to build an online forest as a tie-in to a National Arbor Day (NAD) promotion, where a $1 donation to NAD was made for each new paperless subscriber. New subscribers could "plant" their trees in the forest on their way to sign up for eBill, come back and visit and see the growth of the virtual forest. Now, this does not work for me because I can't be an SBC customer, but it worked for those in the market.  Get this, and I quote, "91,613 'trees' [were] planted in nearly 9 months. Nearly 20,000 new Permission Marketing opt-ins. Current page views of approximately 85,000 per month. The site kicked off with steady growth slightly above expectations, and has grown (and continues to grow) well beyond expectations, and won SBC and RT [Rodgers Townsend] a 2006 National Arbor Day Award for 'leadership in the cause of tree planting, conservation and environmental stewardship.'

Best of all, 453,000 new eBill accounts were started, mostly as a direct result of the campaign (aside from this, the client was not running any other campaigns for a six-month period beyond a few banners on its own site.)"

Think about it: 453,000 new eBill accounts. Now that is what I call a success.