The nature of viral videos is that they are usually quirky and come out of nowhere. They somehow capture the zeitgeist of the Web and often involve dancing. But can the success of a viral video be repeated with a sequel? After all, these often don’t have brand-name stars or big marketing budgets. The conventional wisdom is that they are one-shot wonders. However, if a video gets big enough, it can become its own promotional vehicle for follow-on videos.
Take the example of Evolution Dance, the second most popular video of all time on YouTube. It has been viewed 112 million times since April, 2006. It shows motivational speaker Judson Laipply going through a medley of dance moves culled from the past few decades. I personally find it hard to watch all the way through, but it obviously holds a fascination for many people out there. So much so that Laipply decided to upload a sequel, Evolution of Dance 2 (embedded below).
The sequel has only been on YouTube for three weeks since January 9, 2009. Yet it has already drawn more than 3 million views. In an analysis of the sequel’s growing popularity, Visible Measures notes that Evolution Dance 2 is gaining 190,000 views a day. This actually surpassed the 130,000 views per day that the original was getting.
Except something interesting happened once the sequel took off. Views of the original video shot up to more than 240,000 a day. Since the videos are related, they show up in the “related videos” box for both videos. The popularity of the first seeds the audience for the second. As the second grows in popularity and people discover it from other sources on the Web, they then click on the original video. It is a virtuous cycle.
And this doesn’t seem to be an isolated case. The original Where The Hell Is Matt? video, which shows a guy doing the same dance in different locales around the world, has been viewed 12.6 million times since it was first uploaded in June, 2006. (Second video embedded below). The sequel, Where The Hell Is Matt (2008)? has surpassed the original with 17.4 million views on YouTube since June, 2008.
Who says Internet fame is fleeting?
No, unfortunately, they are an even shorter term version of the pop star, most of whom have one hit before disappearing into obscurity …
I would disagree if you have a viral like this: http://www.yout...OAjfKM&NR=1
ubuntu’s (+) window’s ( – )
check it out!
marvin
http://www.latticepurple.com
I find it hard it to watch the original video all the way through myself, I’ve always wondered why it attracted so much attention for such a long period.
THANK YOU!!! I thought I was alone in that sentiment.
I partially think it was a case of skewed numbers from it being one of the first videos on sites like YouTube back in the early stage. The title and key photo alone made it a curious click for many first time visitors. It’s perpetually stuck at the top of many “most viewed” lists even though it’s not nearly as popular as others now.
This is actually encouraging. I guess lightning can strike twice…
Would have been over 3m if he’d featured CATS.
Great post Erick. I love the view stats you highlight.
I also have to give credit to Judson for wearing the same Orange Crush t-shirt and jeans.
At first I thought it was ridiculous that he’d wear the same shirt in another video 2 years later but that image of him dancing in the orange shirt is almost iconic when it comes to viral video.
Nopo, its like the first kiss you have, It’s called the first kiss because it is and the second one isn’t.
Erick, great follow up piece! Glad you found our findings compelling. The “virtuous cycle” you mention is something we call “viral activation” where something sparks and sets off a frenzy of activity related to a video asset whether that be a spike in view (due to high sharing or linking behaviour) or a far spread of different placements.
And I love how John pointed out Laipply wears the same Orange Crush (tucked-in) t-shrit! Smart branding move on his part.
Now the question remains whether EOD 2 will continue to grow over time to catch up with EOD 1 or if it will fizzle out after the initial interest of a viral video sequel.
Usually it is a one hit wonder.
Viral videos help drive traffic over to new videos.
1) One person whose capacity to produce viral videos I’m constantly impressed with is Ben Relles.
Guy starts off with the Box in a Box (http://www.yout...h?v=3xElIik0Ys0), follows that up with Obama Girl (http://www.yout...h?v=wKsoXHYICqU), and then basically creates a viral video franchise with Barely Political (www.barelypolitical.com).
Granted these don’t quite garner ‘Evolution of Dance’ or ‘Where the Hell is Matt’ numbers, but still attract several million views. I’m amazed that he’s able to string so many relative hits together.
2) That “viral activation” is a really interesting concept. I wonder how many views it takes for it to start kicking in.
I think a sequel to a viral just gets a “head start.” I wouldn’t say it has guaranteed success.
Be good if this was true… but i don’t think so
In your link to the first Evolution of Dance video, your link text is only “Evolution Dance”
The power (for me) of the “where is Hell is Matt” video is when he’s in Rwanda, and the children surround him. I think these videos will continue to “hit” as long as they evoke some basic human traits/emotions (love, laughter, awe). They’re simple, sweet and make us smile. Evolution of dance makes us nostalgic, and will always get a smile. WIth each dance (depending upon your age) you can recall how silly you looked (and how cool you thought you looked) the first time you danced that way. Anything that can evoke humanity/emotion will always win. Personally I can’t wait for more!
Great article, very interesting.
Response videos, mash-ups, remixes are all a part of viral video culture. It actually makes a lot of sense that the sequel and the original would feed off of each other like that. I think its important to note that neither of those videos were made (initially or after the fact) as some sort of viral-marketing-ad-agency-wundercampaign to harness the synergy of the web. I wonder if as many views would have been generated if the sequels had been “sponsored” by someone else with an implicit marketing tie-in.
In that case I would agree with Mike, about the “head start”, and Jesse about driving traffic.
I can see the “where the hell is matt?” video set actually being watched, but from the first time that I heard of the evolution of dance and tried to watch it I figured that the guy had a script running that just kept hitting that video to drive up it’s numbers.
On the other hand, it could be one of those pass it on things – you wasted 2 minutes waiting for something to happen only to find out that nothing every does, so you decide to waste 2 minutes of someone else time by sending them a link.
This is interesting, i wasn’t a fan of the first one, but i guess it’s the follow the leader mentality here, ppl will view as long as they know it’s getting alot of views. I’m looking for the stat that shows me how many didn’t actually stay through the length the vid.
CoolestJobsOnline
http://tinyurl.com/7uj5ay
Some people are just to slick with these video…they very catchy letting you wanting to watch the entire thing.
he must’ve wisely chosen not to use Warner Music in his vids – cause we all know what kind of jerks they are.
honestly, I am surprized how the jerks who run the music industry have allowed this blatant rip off of their music to be used so that 112 million people could enjoy it. I mean, shouldn’t those guys be suing people who spread their music and allow others to enjoy it? do they really want that many people enjoying something they themselves didn’t create and only own as a result of the stupid decisions by the people who did create it? Where’s the beloved RIAA to sue this guy for obviously enjoying himself and humouring us???
http://www.yout...h?v=Z92o20KYH5g
I can’t believe Matt(2nd video) doesn’t like LA. LA is the best. Who cares if everything is a bubble.
Matt could have went and talked to dumpster divers in Long Beach.
A myspace app to monetize such viral videos is launching in february. See a demo at http://profile....ID=342277570%20 and contact me for further details.
This reminds me of a techcrunch article that appeared a couple months ago on the Science behind YouTube: http://www.tech...youtube-videos/
Numa Numa guy also had a sequel and it did quite well. he could be seen as the first opted-in viral video. the not-opted in first place is still of course Star Wars Kid.
The Evolution of dance 2 would be the third time a huge viral video sequel does well. there are many other modest examples. but there has not been a trilogy of huge viral videos. i think that is still unbroken.
then we also have the example of a viral video turned into a viral ad with chocolate rain.
I would say that normally they’re one hit wonders – the reason, they’re genuine, the person at the time doesn’t know it will be a huge hit and that’s what makes it so funny.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s possible to have further successes but i think that the quality of the content has to be up there. Only then will the passover of traffic continue – if it’s horrible, no one is going to want to watch the original
This is encouraging. I went and visited Matt’s site, couldn’t resist. However, traffic is cool, leads are better, sales are best. One of the challenges with viral videos is that unless you have a product or service that is universal, you can’t capitalize on the video. The traffic isn’t targeted for your niche or industry. They both look like they had fun making the vidoes though and I imagine Judson had no idea his video would ever receive more than 10,000 views.
Jarrod
Virality is not about fun only.
SilentMiaow for example is an autistic person, that recorded In My Language alone in her room about what it is to be autistic. 700.000 views on youtube. Not that bad for someone that can’t vocalize.
I was immediately compelled to share it : that’s virality ultimate test. Would you share it?
Then you have the Did you know? series. Millions of views combined.
Then again, Machine is us/ing us, a theoric viral video! By an anthropologist. All version combined, it’s more than 2 millions views.
Or Battle at Kruger, epic but not fun. 40 millions.
So, what is the common point here?
As I see it, all these videos have a “secret” to reveal to the user.
When you hear a secret, you immediately want to share it. Sharing a secret you just learned valorize and validate you.
If a video doesn’t embed some sort of secret(s), be it semantic or visual, the chance of it being viral is near zero.
I gave a conference last week at Les Gobelins, Paris, and part of the talk was about Secrets in viral videos.
http://bit.ly/video-web [Slideshare, in french but simple]
Brett Erlich from Current already did something on this, and it was way more entertaining. Fail
The “Will it blend?” guy (Tom Dickson) did it. He blends all kinds of things in his industrial strength blenders: golf balls, glow sticks, and iPhones. Most of his videos have over a million viewers. A good example of Internet marketing.
That’s true. Also the guy from “You Suck At Photoshop” and let’s not forget “Obama Girl” whose still doing it.
The Wii Fit Girl’s (http://www.laurenbernat.com) on her way of doing a new video and I’m curious to see how the second one does…
I love this video, LMAO.
Theres also another up and coming youtube star.
Yall should MOSTDEFF check out his channel:
http://www.yout...om/keontefamous
it’s no different to a person seeing the second installment of a film at the cinema then getting the dvd of the first one to make the whole event ‘make more sense. curiosity and wanting the full picture – lost chapter of a book – rediscovered, teaser of a follow up etc. the actual content doesn’t need to be a master piece – a catchy tune, humor and a way to share it easily with others – another version of the same thing on/in a new gadget or technology is ‘comforting’
As silly as it all seems right now I believe we are seeing a very lucrative future form of entertainment in these clips. Those that are short enough to capture internet users and clean enough for Madison Avenue will drive a new ad medium that will be bigger than mobile in the next three years.
http://www.ebiz...les/video-sites
The beauty of the viral video (in most cases) is that it is completely disconnected with Madison Avenue.
This guy is way more useful than 90% of the Web 2 dot Zero companies out there…
So what?
The real valuable information, missing in this article, is the answer to that quastion:
“How much real money those silly videos have provided to their authors, and to Google?”
Any idea?
Well for EOD, the answer was ZERO. He got all those hits but the only money he got was from his website. He paid 80K for the rights to have the songs he plays in the 2nd version. He has 2 partners, one who is a YouTube Partner, and another who is a sponsor.
But the interesting part is that he never got his first video taken down for copyright infringment with all the songs he uses in it without permission!
take ur middle finger and put on ur nose.
2.say a name of someone u like.
3.that person will ask u out or say they love u tomarrow.
4. heres the thing copy and paste to 3 other vids
dnt read this(cuz it really wrks). u will gt kissd on the nearest frieday by the love of ur life. 2mara wll b the bst day of ur life hwever if you dnt post ths comment 2 at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days