GenuineVC David Beisel's Perspective on Digital Change

September 21, 2005

It seems to me that usage of the word “viral” has gotten a little out of hand recently. A term that was coined during the 90s boom which then fell out of fashion with everything else, it appears to have undergone a resurgence lately. I’ve heard many entrepreneurs say something like: “Our service is viral, so we don’t need to spend much money on (sales and) marketing. Once we get the product developed and a few customers use it, they’ll of course tell their friends, and it will spread like wildfire.” While I do not doubt the power of happy customer positive word-of-mouth referrals, I believe that there is a distinct difference between a product/service that generates excited users and one which is truly viral. I define something as viral if the act of referring another user is deeply incorporated into the product or service itself.

The genesis of viral marketing is usually attributed to Hotmail’s original signature at the bottom of all outgoing e-mails stating “get your free email address at” It helped propel the company’s rapid growth because the invitation for others to register was integrated into the outgoing e-mails themselves. One “modern” example of viral marketing and growth is Skype. Inherent in their model is communication over a propriety network which requires that both users use the same service. When one person wants to speak to another who isn’t on the system, it is essential that the first invites the second to join. Again, an invitation from one existing user to another is an essential component of the offering. The “viral” nature of the service is not out of user goodwill from a pleasant experience, but rather a functional component to using the service.

Of course, this viral/non-viral distinction is a grey line and doesn’t necessarily need to be separated. Something can spread with viral growth even if the service itself doesn’t contain viral functionality. My frustration, then, stems not from those who bend the viral concept, but those who break it. (Can a traditional enterprise software product with a nine-month sales cycle involving many decision-makers really be viral? Really?). The problem with this and any overuse of a word is that the excess dilutes its original meaning, and so I wish that we’d save the word viral for those applications that really are.

(Feel free to forward this post to someone… but just don’t tell them it’s viral.)

  • Raghav Gupta

    great post…a term I agree has been abused. “Long tail” is also getting there!

  • Jason L. Baptiste

    Hey, GREAT article. Our startup is Viral Ventures Inc., and I share your thoughts on viral marketing. Many people forget that there has to be a “trigger” to make something viral. Yes, your site will spread because it is sticky, but what is it EXACTLY that is sticky aka “the trigger”. Moreover, what is the longevity of what you are terming as “sticky”. Would it be okay to link to this article on our corporate site, once it is released?

    Sincerely,Jason L. Baptiste

  • David Beisel

    Jason, the notion of a “trigger” for a viral event definitely resonates with me. It’s a perfect label for the required facilitator to spur on a viral spreading of something. And, of course, feel free to link to this page or any page on this site. ~ David

About Me

  • avatar
  • I am a cofounder and Partner at NextView Ventures, a dedicated seed-stage venture capital firm making investments in internet-enabled startups. Read More »



Rob Cho Go

Lee Hower


NextView Twitter Stream

  • Rob Go
     - 5 hours ago
  • Rob Go
     - 13 hours ago
    short term voting machine and long term weighing machine and all that jazz
  • Lee Hower
     - 4 days ago
    RT @NextViewVC: New podcast: @ScottBelsky's creative & clever founding story of @Behance (acq by Adobe)…
  • David Beisel
     - 4 days ago
    Aggregation trumping creation (via @sizpatel on @Digiday)