In a ClickZ column today, Nate Elliott airs his thoughts on why he feels Viral Marketing is little more than a myth. I agree, in part.

I think what Nate is getting at is a well thought out idea, since so many viral marketing 'campaigns' go bust, but I think that the column is a bit parochial and doesn't tell the whole story. Perhaps the 'promise' of viral marketing has been so hyped that we have unrealistic expectations of what this marketing tool can do for us. In reality, there are many instances where marketing and advertising fail us miserably and leave us scratching our heads. Viral marketing happens to be inherently 'trackable' which makes it stand out when it takes a dive, where as other mediums can be bolstered with some 'soft measurements' like brand awareness increases and other fluff, viral marketing has nothing to show but numbers - as in the number of people to whom the viral piece has touched.

My point here is that I feel that viral marketing is still a viable component of any comprehensive marketing strategy and that our experimentation should continue. Perhaps in the not too distant future, we will at least be able to triangulate in on some more effective tactics that can improve our chances of VM success.