Technology, commercials and mobile apps

Three separate fields, but all linked, especially when you add in the equation two more: costs and viral. Lately everyone is trying to use one of these (some use all of them) hopefully to achieve the viral effect, but at the end of the day what it matters is the conversion – how many new customers you achieved and did it worth the cost per customer?

Recently, I’ve seen the Mercedes-Benz commercial, quite simple and effective, explaining their new technology very clearly. I presume the budget for this advert wasn’t huge, maybe they could’ve spent more money using owls instead of chickens, also maybe trying to hide the hands. Is not really a viral commercial, but I think is a success and did convince some that the magic body control technology is something that you would like to have in your next car.

Now, we could presume that the Volvo trucks commercial has reached the viral level. But I doubt 1% of the people seen this were interested in technology and maybe less will consider buying a truck, or were convinced to buy even a Volvo car. Probably in 2 months time Van Damme will be the only winner from this and won’t be surprised if his next movie involves at least a truck.

But mobile applications don’t need commercials, using the right technology and social platforms it can easily become viral. In that moment you can compare a mobile application with a commercial, to use the momentum in your advantage. If you play your card right, you may find some new investors (Candy Crush owners filing for secret IPO) or even been receiving an offer from a bigger company (Snapchat refusing the offer from Facebook).

But who gained advantage from the viral effect, did Snapchat refused Facebook offer only to feel like Van Damme doing the split on two trucks, or will King.com invest properly (maybe in a game involving chickens, or owls) and have a new success? Only time will tell who made the right decisions.