Written by: Mukti Yadav

For this discussion, “serious brands” are defined by the nature of their work and the expectations placed on them. These include organisations in higher education, research, public policy, and public health, where credibility, accuracy, and trust are non-negotiable. Their communication goes beyond visibility, carrying the weight of expertise, institutional reputation, and public impact. As a result, the margin for error is smaller, and the cost of misinterpretation is significantly higher.

For organisations operating in such high-stakes environments, virality is far more complex than it appears, and far more conditional in how it delivers value.

The idea of “going viral” has become deeply embedded in how brands think about visibility today. It is often treated as a marker of success, something to aspire to and measure against. However, virality is not a strategy; it is an outcome. It is also short-lived, with limited shelf life, and in some cases, can work against the brand when it is not aligned with intent, audience, or context.

This is where the gap begins to show in practice.

In many conversations, the ask is simple: “Let’s do something viral.”
But what follows is often a mismatch between expectation and reality.

In some cases, it can be useful. In others, it can be entirely misplaced.

Take the example of a higher education institution.

A reel showing campus life, student experiences, or even a lighter moment with leadership using a trending format can perform well. It reaches prospective students, creates a sense of relatability, and makes the institution appear more dynamic and approachable. For a student deciding where to apply, this kind of content shapes perception.

We’ve seen this play out with institutes like IIT Madras, where campus-led, student-centric reels have gained traction for their authenticity, and with IIT Ropar convocation moments where leadership participation, something as simple as a director informally engaging with students, has gone viral for the right reasons.

Example: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DROjEI8E7q4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPl38bKE9w-/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMKOfgPz8LO/?igsh=OGc3MWF3N3BmMG9z 

These moments work because they are rooted in reality, not constructed purely for performance.

However, the same content does not operate in a single dimension. While it may be created with students in mind, it can sometimes resonate beyond that audience. Moments like these sometimes draw appreciation even from policymakers, as they reflect openness, relatability, and a break from rigid institutional communication.

Rather than building credibility in a conventional sense, such content helps humanise the institution and broaden its appeal across audiences.

The contrast becomes sharper when the same approach is applied to domains that require a high degree of seriousness and trust.

A public health campaign, for instance, operates in a space where credibility is critical. The communication is often backed by research, policy, and expert insight. Presenting such information through trend-driven formats, entertainment-led edits, or overly casual tones can undermine the intent of the message. Even if such content performs well in terms of reach or engagement, it risks trivialising the effort behind the work and creating a disconnect with the audience it is meant to influence.

An example of this disconnect can be seen in a social media post by Lenskart  during Pongal. The post, intended to be festive and relatable, was criticised for cultural inaccuracies, most notably including elements that did not belong to the festival. What followed was not just engagement, but backlash. Users questioned the brand’s understanding of the occasion and the authenticity of its communication.

The post went viral, but largely for the wrong reasons.

This highlights a fundamental issue: the effectiveness of virality is not determined by numbers alone, but by its alignment with the purpose of communication and the expectations of the audience.

The same principle applies across platforms.

A detailed, well-articulated LinkedIn post may succeed in reaching the right stakeholders, generating meaningful conversations, and even attracting media attention. It works because it is aligned with the context in which it appears and the audience it addresses. Placing the same content on Instagram, however, would likely result in limited engagement, not because the content lacks value, but because it is not suited to the platform or its users. An example of this that we have seen first hand is that the research posts of the faculties perform exceptionally well on LinkedIn and perform poorly on Instagram.

The implication is straightforward. Content cannot be one-size-fits-all. It needs to be intentionally adapted to both the platform and the audience it is meant to reach.

The issue, therefore, is not format but fit.

When content is created or adapted without considering how different audiences interpret tone and intent, it risks being seen as out of place, ultimately affecting how the brand is perceived.

Despite this, a common pattern continues to shape marketing decisions. Brands frequently look at content that appears successful elsewhere and attempt to replicate it, often without considering whether the underlying context applies to them. What works for organisations like Delhi Police or Mumbai Police, which have built a distinct tone and audience expectation over time, cannot be directly applied to institutions operating in entirely different domains.

The challenge, therefore, is not the pursuit of virality itself, but the assumption that it functions uniformly across contexts.

Even in situations where a piece of content performs exceptionally well, it is worth examining what that performance actually represents. High visibility does not necessarily translate into meaningful engagement with the intended audience. It does not guarantee credibility, nor does it ensure that the brand is being perceived in the way it intends.

This becomes particularly relevant when brands attempt to appeal to younger audiences, especially Gen Z. While trends and fast formats can drive visibility, this audience is quick to recognise what feels forced or out of place. As a result, content may perform well in the moment but fail to build any lasting perception or trust.

For serious brands, the more relevant question is not whether a piece of content can go viral, but whether it can reach and influence the right audience in the right way.

This may sometimes involve adopting more accessible formats, particularly when addressing younger audiences, as seen in the IIT examples. At other times, it requires restraint, choosing clarity, depth, and credibility over visibility.

Ultimately, effective communication in such contexts is less about maximising reach and more about maintaining alignment. It requires a clear understanding of who the audience is, what they expect, and how they engage with information. Without this alignment, even the most successful content, in terms of numbers, risks becoming inconsequential.

Virality, in that sense, is not inherently valuable or problematic. Its relevance depends entirely on where it is applied, how it is used, and what it is expected to achieve.