iced vanilla #11: viral, but meaningless?
on tiktok virality, fashion branding, and the image illusion
if marketing today had an emotion, it would be urgency. the pressure to go viral, stay visible, respond fast, and appear everywhere all at once is reshaping not just campaigns, but the very logic of brand building.
does viral content strengthen brand image - or just trigger momentary behavior?
i’m reflecting on that pressure through the lens of a paper: “the viral effect on brand image in fashion tiktok” (zhechev & gercheva, 2025 doi
using structural equation modeling (SEM), the researchers tested how viral content, influencer credibility, and brand image influence purchase intention. key finding: viral marketing doesn’t significantly impact brand image.
THE MODEL
the paper models viral marketing through two mechanisms:
message strength (i.e. content quality + source credibility)
referral (users sharing the content)
then it analyzes how this affects three types of brand image, using park, jaworski & macinnis’s framework:
they found that 1/ message strength matters less than expected; 2/referral drives brand perception; 3/ but crucially, not all brand image types respond the same.
THE RESULTS: FUNCTIONAL WINS, SYMBOLIC AND EXPERIENTIAL FADE
referrals influenced all three types of brand image positively. but when the flow was reversed - testing whether strong brand images increase referrals - only the functional dimension held up.
that is: if a brand is seen as useful, people are more likely to share. but if a brand is just aesthetically pleasing or emotionally charged? not enough
this nuance matters because it reveals a contradiction in tiktok culture. while the platform amplifies symbolic and experiential cues (aesthetic, sound, vibe), these don’t necessarily translate into user action or loyalty unless grounded in functional trust.
so the viral hit might look good and feel good - but if it doesn’t mean something to the consumer’s practical world, it doesn’t get shared, or remembered.
FASHION BRAND TYPOLOGY: THE ROLE OF BRAND TYPE
the study implicitly works within the jin & cedrola (2017) typology of fashion brands:
the brand tested in the study was nike - a mass market brand with strong global awareness and functional credibility. this matters.
virality amplifies what's already embedded in a brand’s category positioning
for mass market: viral marketing supports familiarity and utility.
for luxury: viral marketing might dilute exclusivity if not carefully controlled.
for symbolic brands: viral marketing risks emptying meaning into trend cycles.
STRATEGIC INSIGHTS
1/ referrals are the real asset
the social act of sharing is a stronger signal of influence than content alone. craft messages not just to entertain — but to be shared with meaning.
2/ not all virality is equal
placed virals (strategically crafted) outperform random ones. design for alignment with your brand’s functional, symbolic, or experiential promise - not just a moment.
3/ sensory and symbolic aesthetics are fragile
a pretty ad with trending audio can create buzz — but if the brand doesn't stand for something functionally or socially meaningful, it fades fast.
4/ mass-market ≠ mindless
mass brands can thrive on virality — but they must still invest in brand consistency. nike works in this study because its functional equity is already strong.
tiktok virality gives brands a window into cultural attention. but attention is only leverage if it reinforces the right type of brand meaning. building brand image - whether symbolic, functional, or experiential - requires more than going viral. it requires message clarity, platform sensitivity, and consumer alignment.
see you,
xxx