It's been an interesting life after journalism for me.
I was invited to participate in an event in San Francisco as a moderator by the Social Media Club of San Francisco. The topic of conversation was "Viral Content." I was also nervous because I was joining a group of PR professionals seasoned in the arena of content marketing, particularly one woman who had just taken the city of San Francisco--and the world for that matter--by storm.
Don't get me wrong. Being a multimedia journalist of an online publication, one of the key jobs you have is to market your content in order to have it seen, read and shared. But the terminology is still new to me.
So let me start with this: Virality should not be the goal of your content, but a positive side effect. Along with this, virality is not always beneficial, especially if the audience you reach does not engage past the initial piece of content.
Now give me a second to explain. Your content should be amazing. If it's not, you shouldn't be sharing it with the world. There is way too much content online. If you are truly going to contribute, make it count.
A good piece of content will give something to its reader:
A great piece of content will offer all of these.
The speakers at this panel offered great insight into the type of content they were creating and sharing for their prospective clients, what worked and what didn't. Each was so different but all had the same key take-away: the virality achieved was a byproduct of their overall efforts, not the focal point.
The level of virality varied from client to client but the most successful example, without a doubt was the story behind SF Batkid.