A Formula for Creating Viral Content

As content marketers, we are tasked with an extremely complex objective: to create content that resonates with audiences, spurs action, and often can spread virally.

In order to continue improving our craft, we spend a lot of time looking at what really works and are always striving to develop processes and learning that builds from these lessons. One of our biggest goals is to iterate on our content until we feel it has met the criteria for true stickiness and potential virality. What follows are the main components of this process — a formula for creating successful viral content. Here it is:

I know it look’s intimidating, but don’t worry — it really isn’t too complicated. Stay with me.

Push enough buttons

Start with the assumption that every single person in your target audience is a potential sharer and that they all want to share content, they just don’t know it yet. Push the right buttons for enough people, and voila, virality.

So what are these buttons?

Theory of planned behavior

In 1985, Icek Ajzen, currently a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, developed a theoretical framework and model for explaining and predicting human behavior. Since its inception, the Theory of Planned Behavior has become one of the most widely used models for explaining human behavior and has been comprehensively validated in a wide range of behavioral scenarios. Now we’ll apply it to the sharing of online content.

TPB posits that all of us make rational decisions about whether to engage or not engage in a behavior. It proposes that the rationale for making these decisions relies on a number of discrete variables, and ultimately, if you can understand each of these variables, you can better predict behavior.

Elements of the theory:

TPB can be broken up into four primary segments:

1. Attitude toward behavior (AB)
2. Subjective norms (SN)
3. Perceived behavioral control (PBC)
4. Behavioral Intention (BI)

Using these segments, we can simplify the formula I gave at the beginning of this article.

Now let’s define the terms to explore the meaning of this equation. To help put things into context, we’ll use the Chipotle Scarecrow campaign as an example along with all of these segments.

Attitude toward behavior (AB):

In general, this can be thought of as the sharer’s understanding about the total potential positive or negative ramifications of sharing the content and the severity of these ramifications. This segment can be broken down into two parts:

1. The sharer’s evaluation of the potential outcomes of the sharing the content (e)

In sharing behavior, this is the group of potential outcomes the sharer guesses may happen as a result of his or her sharing.

2. The strength or value of the potential outcomes of sharing the content (b)

In sharing behavior, this would be the sharer’s estimation of the value of the outcomes. So, perhaps the sharer has estimated that sharing a particular piece of content might cause controversy among those he shares it with; this would be the evaluation of how much controversy he thinks it would cause.

Let’s look at the Chipotle campaign. The video takes a dystopian look at the artificial food industry in the hopes of both spreading awareness and calling attention to the fact that Chipotle supports better food options.

When taking stances like this, it’s important to completely back up your moral position, or else there’s a possibility of push back. It’s also possible Chipotle could have angered companies that don’t follow the same food sourcing policies. Regardless, Chipotle made the decision to launch the campaign, weighing the pros and cons and deciding the benefits outweighed any potential negatives.

There were some negative comments, like calling out the type of soda sold at Chipotle and complaints about the fact there was no Android version of the accompanying app.

But overall, the campaign had an overwhelmingly positive response, with more than 11 million views on YouTube (with more than 61,000 likes) and a 3 ½ star rating on the app. Clearly, the possible negatives didn’t outweigh the positives.

Subjective norms (SN):

In general, this can be thought of as the sharer’s prediction of the potential reactions of the audience they are sharing with. It’s also the motivation and strength of motivation for the sharer to comply with, or deviate from, the normative beliefs of those they are sharing with. This segment can also be broken down into two constituent parts:

1. The strength and quality of the normative beliefs of those who are being shared with (n)

In sharing behavior, this would include the totality of behavioral and social expectations the sharer believes the group they’re sharing with holds as important. It also includes the strength of these normative beliefs.

2. The motivation to comply with the commonly known normative beliefs of the referents (m)

In sharing behavior, this would be the sharer’s estimation of the consequences related to how the content matches (or doesn’t match) with the normative beliefs and expectations of the group they are sharing with. Simply put, it’s how the sharer thinks the people they are sharing the content with will react to the content.

Before Chipotle launched the Scarecrow campaign, research probably showed them more people were concerned about the sources of their food. The campaign would allow them to reach out to these worried audiences and provide both education and reassurance.

If they had been wrong about this, the whole strategy could have backfired and sounded preachy. But in the end, people were very impressed and identified with the message.

Perceived behavioral control (PBC):

In general, this can be thought of as the sharer’s understanding of the factors that might limit or facilitate sharing behavior. It also refers to the strength of these factors. As with the others, this segment can also be broken down into two constituent parts:

1. The known potential controls (c)

In sharing behavior, this would include any and all factors that might make sharing of content easier or more difficult from an execution perspective. Essentially, what logistical or technical hurdles might there be that prevent or facilitate the act of sharing?

2. The power or strength of the controls (p)

In sharing behavior, this variable is simply an estimation by the sharer of how big or small the controls (c) are in preventing or facilitating the sharing behavior.

The Chipotle campaign may have faced a snag here by alienating Android users, but many consumers seemed to appreciate the video enough to overlook the inconvenience. Chipotle also did a good job getting the word out there about both the video and the app so that people were more likely to see every asset and share them.

When combined, the sum of each of these factors (and their constituent parts) can be used to estimate Behavioral Intention, or the overall likelihood of the sharer having the intention of sharing. All combined, the equation looks like this:

Applying the formula

By understanding the constituent parts that make up the intention to share, we can scrutinize each part and begin to grok the totality of potential factors that truly influence the decision to share or not share in a structured way. Let’s begin with:

How attitude toward behavior can be applied to increase sharing:

To reiterate, “Attitude toward behavior” refers to the sharer’s potential positive or negative ramifications of sharing the content, and the severity of these ramifications. These potential ramifications include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The types and severity of emotions the content will elicit from others. As an incredibly empathetic and emotional species, humanity has evolved countless highly specialized tools for sharing emotionally with others. From the expressiveness of our faces to the complexity of our language and body language, we’re incredibly specialized to spread not only our ideas but the emotions that are tied to these ideas. This naturally extends to how we share content online. Content is an emotional vehicle, and we’re eager to see our own emotional reactions to content mirrored in those we feel connected to. By sharing content that touches us emotionally, we hope to see our emotions reflected back at us by those we share with, enabling us to re-live the initial peak emotional experience we had when we first viewed the content. This is one of the reasons why emotionally compelling content is often of a positive or heartwarming nature. The sharers are more likely to impart content that makes others feel good rather than content they think will make others feel poorly. The stronger the positive emotional reaction the sharer believes the content will have, generally the stronger the motivation to share. If negative content is shared, generally it is done so with the understanding that those the sharer shares with will be enabled in some way to act based on that negative experience. Sharing of negative content requires an outside motivation, a secondary motivator because there generally isn’t inherent value in content that evokes negative emotions for its own sake.
• How the content will reflect on the sharer. Content can be thought of as an extension of one’s ego. Sharing is motivated in this respect because it bolsters or enhances our own self-perception. We consider how the content we share will influence the ways others see us, and we consider how the content we share can help us to refine our own understanding of ourselves. Consider your own Facebook sharing habits. You can probably identify friends of yours who are political, family oriented, funny, depressing, etc. simply by the types of things they tend to share. This is intentional, if not explicitly so. We all share to bolster or grow our own identities and the identities we project to those we share with.
• How does sharing the content tangibly benefit the sharer? The New York Times put together an interesting study that looked at the motivations of sharing and found that most sharing happens when the sharer can point to tangible benefits to sharing the content. They identified five primary sharing motivators:

1. To bring valuable or entertaining content to others. According to survey results, 94% of sharers say they carefully considered how the content they were sharing would be of use to their audience.
2. To define themselves to others. Just as sharers share to bolster their own self-image, they also share to bolster their image among those they share with.
3. To grow and nourish relationships with others. 78% of survey respondents said they shared content to stay connected to others that they normally would not have.
4. To feel more connected. 69% say they shared to feel more connected to and involved with the world.
5. To get the word out about causes or brand. 84% say they have shared as a way to advocate for a brand or cause they believe in.

What this means: Content that is simply informative isn’t going to cut it unless it evokes strong emotions from the reader. If the article, graphic, or video isn’t captivating enough, a reader won’t bother to share it because there will be no desire to relive the experience, use the content to help with self-identification, or take any action relevant to the topic.

How subjective norms behavior can be applied to increase sharing:

To reiterate, subjective norms refers to the sharer’s understanding of how the content he or she is sharing fits the norms of the audience. It also refers to the strength of these norms. The following are elements of what most sharers often subconsciously consider when assessing how their content will play with the subjective norms of those they share with.

• How does the content being shared conform with or deviate from known norms (or groups of norms)? Each time someone consumes content, an evaluation is made on the content in terms of how the initial consumer’s reaction to the content might differ from their peers’ or those they have the potential to share that content with. Even if the content meshed well with subjective norms of the initial consumer, if the content was known to deviate significantly from the subjective norms of their potential sharing audience, it creates a deterrent against sharing.

  It’s important to note that audience is key, and social norms can vary significantly between different groups. In fact, most individuals can define several potential groups of individuals that have different (and sometimes opposed) known sets of subjective norms.

  Consider your own sharing behavior. When you are considering sharing a clip from last night’s Rachel Maddow Show on Facebook, you stop and consider how that content might be received by your friends or relatives who watch Fox News.

• How strong are the known social norms related to the content being shared, and how big are the consequences when they are broken? Knowing that the content you’re sharing may run counter to the expected subjective norms of some or even all of your audience will not always deter from sharing. The sharer makes estimations about the social ramifications of violating those norms. Not all subjective norms are created equal. For instance, murder violates subjective norms, but so does failing to cover your mouth when you cough. The sharer must weigh the potential other benefits of sharing against their estimation of the potential negative repercussions of violating the norms of some or all of the audience.

• Are there members of the potential audience who act as Trumps? When it comes to sharing content socially, there is a “least common denominator” type effect when sharers make judgments about the potential ramifications of their sharing behavior. They consider not only the broader known subjective norms of groups, but they also must take into consideration the subjective norms of each individual of that group (and doubly so among those who carry greater power to exert consequences on them). The subjective norm considerations of someone on Facebook who is friends with their boss, parents, or grandmother is certainly different than the subjective norm considerations of someone sharing content only with their friends.

• Differing norms across channels and the role of anonymity in accountability. The role of anonymity in social sharing is incredibly interesting because it can eliminate an entire aspect of considerations generally made when sharing content. If the sharer is unencumbered by any potential negative ramifications, he or she will generally behave more boldly. This is important because different social sharing channels have different levels of anonymity, which can massively affect the types of content that are shared. Consider a hypothetical individual who is active on 4chan, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter. The content he or she shares will differ wildly between these four channels. Not only will the subjective norms of these four communities be different, but the level of accountability to conform with the subjective norms of these differing communities will differ with variations in anonymity between these networks.

What this means: Not everyone is equally likely to share a piece of content, so in order to get the best results, keep your audience in the forefront of your mind during both the ideation and production processes. Research your target audience thoroughly to see what kind of content they generally share and discuss, and then tailor your own content to fit into these preferences.

How perceived behavioral controls can be applied to increase sharing:

To reiterate, perceived behavioral controls are beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior. These are generally more logistical considerations about the ease or difficulty of sharing. They generally include the following:

• The amount of time required to share. Anything that you can possibly do to make sharing faster, do it. Simplicity over complexity. Even a few seconds of additional time to search for a sharing button will make the difference between whether or not someone decides to share.

• The amount of effort required to share. Do all the work for the sharer that you can. Make sure that Tweets and Facebook shares are already pre-filled with sharing copy.

• The presence of unexpected technical hurdles to sharing. Make sure your content can be shared in the same way it is viewed. Does that infographic embed code work properly? Does your dynamic widget break in some browsers? Make sure things work as expected, or expect sharers to give up when the first minor problem crops up.

What this means: The way you format and package content can either encourage or hinder the probability of sharing. Make sure you give the publishers and readers everything they need to pass the content along with just two clicks. If you give them time between reading and passing the content along, they may reconsider pressing the “share” button.

Conclusions

In the beginning of the article, I mentioned this formula:

The only piece left undescribed are the “W” variables. These are simply the weighted coefficients, or the relative strength of the three main factors we discussed: Attitude toward behavior, Subjective norms, and Perceived behavioral controls.

Each of these individual elements and their constituent parts are not weighted equally. The impact of AB, or SN, or PBC will vary between sharers and content items. Here are some tips on how to determine which part of the equation should be your focus.

AB: Does your target audience regularly consume large amounts of content? If so, you’ll want to focus on the AB part of the equation, because if your content isn’t compelling enough to stand out from the flood of images and text these readers are already encountering, there’s a much lower chance your content will get shared.

SN: Do many members of your target audience have public personas or hold positions of power? If so, they’d be extremely less likely to share content that deviates from subjective norms, meaning the content you create needs to be perfectly in line with audience expectations and values and the SN portion of the equation needs to become priority.

PBC: Is your target audience relatively inactive on social media or less tech savvy than the average online reader? If this is the case, a large focus needs to be on designing the page to persuade your audience to share. Without an extremely clear interface, it’s possible the audience can be completely captivated but not share.

When taken in its totality, the formula can be used to effectively evaluate the responses of an audience to a piece of content. In general, do your very best to:

1. Increase the real or perceived benefits of sharing the content.
2. Avoid content that, when shared, would subject the sharer to negative social implications for breaking subjective norms. In other words, don’t be controversial without understanding if the position your content takes will run counter to the opinion of the audiences that viewers tend to share with.
3. Make your content as fast and easy to share as possible while reducing any and all technological hurdles to sharing.

It’s simple advice, but it is important. By considering that all of your potential sharers rely on a discrete set of factors, the success or failure of your content is demystified to a great extent.