Tipping to the Big Seed
When Gladwell published The Tipping Point, his thesis popularizing long standing findings in epidemiology, psychology, sociology and innovation adoption linked them with social media - it sparked a groundswell mania for anything that would Viral, Buzz or Stick. It seems everybody needed and demanded a viral program. And why not? Start with a few influential people and have the power of social media multiply you message while you reap the benefits of free word of mouth advertising! I'll take a dozen please.
Problem is…. life just doesn’t tend to work that way. There is no free lunch, there is no surefire way of creating Viral programs, heck - even the simpler task of being able to spot them has eluded us. Just ask the roomful of experts that gathered for a contagious media contest who failed to predict which of 60 submitted websites would generate the most page views. (see Influentials)
Coming onto the scene, Duncan J Watts, now professor of sociology at Columbia University has some ideas that anyone contemplating new media needs to become aware of. He does come with a growing list of credentials having been picked by Harvard Business Review in 2007 as having one of the top 100 breakthrough ideas to watch. If you haven’t come across his viewpoints as yet, allow me to offer you this brief primer on 3 key viewpoints.
1. Accidental Influentials - “Anybody with a match can start a forest fire.”
Unlike Gladwell’s (Tipping Point) view of special status “Hipster” individuals (Mavens, Salesmen, Connectors) that are deemed critical to the propagation of a ‘viral’ idea, Watts feels that anyone can play that role.
Based on his computer simulations, he finds that most trends are started by the 'average person'. That while Experts/Influentials were able to spread a trend farther – they were not necessary. Indeed he feels that for a trend to take root – there needs to be some pre-existing receptivity in the market - it can't be hyped into existence.
2. Experimental Study of inequality/unpredictability... - The Herd vs the Long Tail:
In an intriguing study of 14,000 people picking from 48 online music downloads (across 8 trials); given the choice in an undifferentiated market, it seems those able to secure an early lead in popularity were able to gain momentum and pull away from the pack. On the other hand, if a previous ‘winner’ failed to achieve a popular lead they were just as likely to be bottom picks. Individual assessments of talent it seems plays second fiddle to group popularity.
3. Viral Marketing for the Real World - The Big Seed:
Not surprisingly given the above, Watts feels that Viral programs are too unpredictable, success too elusive and unrepeatable. Therefore he counsels smarter marketers to adopt a strategy that combines the benefits of ‘massive media’, ‘viral’ and ‘interactive’ to create larger beachheads with consumers. From this foundation he argues, the inherent level of ‘awareness/popularity’ can be used to help nurture the possibility of ‘viral’ and ‘interactive’ engagement and with it secure additional propagated/bonus exposure.
Consider for a moment the probable success of having your brand promoted on Oprah, with a link to your interactive site and some pass-along functionality. Contrast that with the likelihood of success in trying to seed with ‘influentials”, to have them proselytize the awareness of your program. I don't think anyone would doubt that Oprah wins.
He puts forward a simple formula to measure the impact of programs using Forward Track, a service that can map the propagation of emails etc… using just 3 variables:
Seed: How many people initially exposed to the message
Propagation (Z): How many people this message has been forwarded to
Responsiveness (B): The % of the propagated folks that will ultimately act on the message when received
Therefore Propagation x Responsiveness = Reproduction (R) and if R>1 then the propagation will be viral. (example if Z= 2 and B=30% then R= 0.60) And the closer R is to 1.0, the more iterations there will be before the propagation dies off.
While this is the start of some important breakthroughs into a more systematic approach to leveraged marketing in the web space, there are considerable questions left to be addressed:
What are the indicators of favorable conditions for market acceptance of a new message?
How does propagation vary across iterations?
How does propagation vary by type of message? (positive, Vs negative Vs information/entertainment)
What are the relevant sender/receiver relationship hierarchies: Family Vs Friends Vs Colleagues vs (passing) Acquaintances?
How does the relationship between sender and receiver influence the type of action taken on messages?
What role does the risk of following Vs not following the message have on message action?
What role does the sender’s subject matter relevancy/credibility have to the message?
How much time can elapse before people forget the message or deemed the original message circumstances to not have any bearing?
This work helps to define the knife’s edge of where something might be considered viral or spam. And as a consequence, comes to chart the course for how the the social media and email 2.0 players will need to move forward if they wish to monetize their customers' social graphs - be it from within their walled gardens or across domains (Google API). For marketers it provides a platform to measure and monitor the propagation of messages and will provide important feedback on the what, where and how's of increasing customer engagement.
Bibliography:
Is the Tipping Point Toast? Clive Thomson
Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation, Journal of Consumer Research, Watts and Dodds
Viral Marketing for the Real World, Watts, Peretti and Frumin
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/854Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market, Watts et al
Forward Track: http://forwardtrack.eyebeamresearch.org/
Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age – Duncan J Watts
