We’re all about marketing which does more than just make a sale. Particularly when social media enters the mix, marketers are empowered with unparalleled access to audiences more vast and varied than ever. We believe that comes with an incredible opportunity to spread a positive message that uplifts and adds value to the lives of consumers.
It may seem like a lofty goal, but it’s highly doable – and very beneficial to a business. In this article from Social Media Today author Martin Jones cites a 2010 study from the Wharton School of Business which confirms something we at Inspired Social have always known, despite the objections of the previous fear/greed/vanity driven marketing status quo:
“The study presented a number of key takeaways including the following:
- Negative content tends to be less viral than positive content
- Awe-inspiring content and content that surprises or is humorous is more likely to be shared
- Content that causes sadness can become viral but is generally less likely to
- Content that evokes anger is likely to be shared more. In fact, the study demonstrated that the strongest forecaster of virality is how much anger does the message evoke.
Interestingly, while conventional wisdom is that people will share negative news more than positive, the results of the study indicated that overall, positive news is actually more viral.”
Toward our goal to encourage and celebrate this type of marketing we’re launching the #SoInspired hashtag and blog series.
Tweet about your favorite example(s) of positive, supportive marketing. We’ll be watching, and we’ll provide regular round-ups of inspired marketing rockstars.
Meanwhile – tell us – is there any marketing you’re developing which can be injected with some positive inspiration? Need ideas? Comment below and let us know. Let’s light a spark!
P.S. The note from the article quote above about from anger-evoking content being the strongest indicator of virality is interesting. The study did cite two specific examples of content (both articles about fraud/injustice in American economics) which suggests to us that anger-inducing content such as “What Red Ink? Wall Street Paid Hefty Bonuses” is shared as much out of a feeling of empowerment about spreading the word of those injustices as it is pure anger. That is to say – we believe people share anger-inducing content in an attempt to bring about resolution of the injustice through public awareness which they themselves are facilitating. Therefore, there is still a positive intention and end to sharing even the most anger-inducing content. What do you think?