Saturday, 7 November 2009

Almost hilarious comments to the article' Let’s Kill “Viral”: It’s Time For a New Word

Tech Crunch has published an article entitled: Lets kill viral, it is time for a new word

Written by guest post author Adam L. Penenberg, who is the author of the book Viral Loop. Mr Penenbergs complains that his publisher wants to change the title to ‘Share’ because they are worried about the negative connotations of Viral in the context of H1N1 flue or swine flu as we call it ‘over here’.

Probably with good intentions, if naïve, he declares that it is time to kill ‘Viral’ and asks the audience/readership for alternative terms. The comments, long list, are mostly hilarious. Only one or two out of dozens and dozens take him seriously. Most think it is a stupid idea. One comment insinuates how cynical it is to try to kill viral and start a sort of viral campaign to look for an alternative name!

Most of the comments are of the sort ‘mock, tease, ridicule or scoff’ which is what Wikipedia tells me I should write down in politically correct style instead of what I wanted to write down. Here is a very short list of alternatives: fungal, orgasmeme, tidal, spamsplosive, avalanche, H1M1, social loops, wildfire marketing, contagious, sticky, parasitic, or herpetic. And this is a small sample.

I have left a humble comment (un-moderated yet) feeling sorry for him and for the publishers decision which I said it has the solidity of a cream cake. Hey, there is nothing better than ‘viral’ and we at Viral Change (TM) practitioners feel very strongly about or brand! Mmmmm, I think we will stick to Viral .... for a few years. The fact that ‘everybody is using viral’, far from a problem, is... good! But there is only one Viral Change (TM)

1 comment: said...

May I suggest that you delete 'almost' from your post title? It is actually 100%, certifiable hilarious. I would have lots to add, but I'm afraid my comments would be too disruptive even for you.