I’ve read the literature thoroughly and I not only disagree, but the “Big Seed Marketing” model I describe comes from Duncan Watts, who pioneered social network theory (he wrote the seminal paper).

I know there are a lot of cranks out there, which is why I always try to read the primary sources. It’s a shame, I know, because they tend to have long formulas with Greek letters. Alas…

- Greg

Sorry to be the one to pour cold water on this, but much contemporary behavioural science would disagree with the pov about diffusion and propagations of ideas and behaviour that you articulate so well.

i. the epidemiology metaphor is not as strong for human behaviour and ideas as is widely suggested: most ideas and behaviours that spead through populations are not really “contagious” or “sticky” (except in retrospect): most of the time there is little to choose between option a. and option b. (and all the other options).
ii. most social networks are not fixed and finite in the way you suggest (except in isolated and primitive societies). For most of us, the social networks in which we are embedded are shifting and fluid. Apart from anything else as soon as there is interaction and influence, the structure is changed so it’s hard to talk of “the network” in that sense.
iii. That said, it is possible to identify the underlying kind of structure available and interestingly it appears that a better default for the underlying structure might be 1. effectively random i.e. multi-dimensional and mutual (we see this a lot in popular culture ideas and fashions) or 2. clumped or small-world (e.g. in for example teen binge drinking – it’s an activity that brings and keeps a group together). The hub and spoke structure that e.g. Gladwell’s model typifies is much rarer in reality than you might think – not a fiction, but certainly not the best default setting.
iv. One of the big conceptual challenges is to recognise that the ideas we have about social networks are “selfish”: we think of networks as TV networks – channels down which ideas (e.g. our ideas) and behaviours and diseases flow or can be propagated. It’s far more accurate and useful to see them more as eco-systems in which most of the propagation of these kind of items is mutual, messy and driven by the people in the system interacting with and emulating each other.

It’s a shame, I know, because the picture you paint is much more straight forward and apparently primed for those of us into social network marketing to do our thing and create “virals” (Ugh! “viral” is a way of describing the outcome (spreading far) not the thing that spreads or the mechanism by which it spreads.

Oh, and you might wonder why most of our attempts to spread stuff doesn’t end up being that successful – not for lack of effort or lack of stickiness or indeed for not identifying the (often) self-proclaimed “influentials: it’s just that the real nature of social networks – a swirling social soup – is different from the model you describe.

More on my blog including this award winning article here http://herd.typepad.com/herd_the_hidden_truth_abo/2008/11/free-gift-influence-and-how-things-really-spread.html

Interested to see what you think

Thanks for introducing an interesting topic. I’m posting about memes as replicators on Sunday.

- Greg

Dawkins describes “memes” as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures in exactly the same way genes do through the process of natural selection.

He used a series of wide ranging examples to illustrate his case from hip hop youth cultures phenomena of wearing baseball caps backwards (!) to the spread and instilling of religious practices and ideology, a theme he returned to with gusto in his recent and highly recommended publication “The God Delusion.”

Just like genes, Dawkins argues, memes evolve by “cultural” natural selection through variation, mutation and competition. Memes which mutate and replicate the most effectively tend to survive and spread. The success of the spread of early Christians in Europe owed much to their strategy of “hijacking” pagan rites and rituals and mutating them to support the proliferation of Christian ideology. Machiavelli used several examples of successful political and colonial “memes” which bolstered the hegemony of the Medici’s in Medieval Italy in his seminal work “The Prince” .

“Meme theory” seems to have as much if not more to say as an explanation for how ideas spread, mutate and decline as any of the recent models postulated.

I think there’s a lot of truth to what you say. However, there’s also an efficiency question.

To take your Guy Kawasaki example, he was an employee. Hiring people is quite expensive, as is taking client’s to dinner, holding events, etc. While all of these things are a good idea, even necessary, they can be extremely inefficient.

A good counter example is pet food, which is advertised almost exclusively on TV. Of course, targeting pet stores and veterinary clinics would be more targeted, but would it actually be more efficient? How often would you be able to reach people? How much would it cost to have premium placement in every pet store.

The answer is that it’s probably much more efficient to advertise on TV and reach everybody than to try to weed out those who aren’t pet owners or potential pet owners, which is what most pet foods do even though they are only really interested in about 5% of the audience they’re reaching.

Targeting, while useful, isn’t the whole story.

- Greg

I like the whole epidemic analogy and will surely run with it sooner than later.
taking this from your article …”Seen in the light of network structure, Gladwell’s “Power of the Few” concept begins to break down. Why focus exclusively on convincing a few influential people when there are so many people around them? After all, influential people are connected to many others that may be more open and easier to convince.”….

I have to say that I subscribe to Gladwell’s Power of Few. It’s exactly what Targeted Digital marketing is aiming at, in my understanding… versus what mass media and traditional advertising tries to do. Traditional (ok and Digital Spam or mass emails) aim to “find” the few in the network by spending vast amounts of money.

Targeted, or Gladwell’s power of few, already starts off by Planning to attract (attack?) the powerful ones, or the influencer and let them carry the “virus payload”.

It seems the networks firewalls always have a “port open” to these trusted influencers…versus letting just an infected newbie to try and spread the disease within the network.

For example I’ve been doing Augmented Reality and extolling it’s virtues since 2005! and yes a great idea is an idea whose time has come is a good way of saying it, but I would tend to believe more that I did not infect an “influencer” or one amongst the “powerful few” .. much like Apple infected Guy Kawasaki – to spread the idea.

- just another way of seeing it I guess.

Thanks. Good luck with your new business.

- Greg

A timely post. I’m in early stage development of my business, Leap Greetings. I am breaking new ground in a 100 year old industry that has proven to be very set in their ways. I suppose the best thing to happen to most products or ideas is have them blow up because of the viral effect. However, statistically that’s a very small number. I like your thought process and targeting the masses to reach the few makes a great deal of sense to me. My prime audience is significant but, through years of conditioning is often averse to my product. For my company viral marketing is likely the most effective method to garner attention, interest and participation. Thanks.

Thanks for your comment.

You can try this article in Fast company: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/122/is-the-tipping-point-toast.html?page=0,5

Also a Google search for “Big Seed Marketing” should yield some results.

- Greg

Really a great post.

Would like to share some experiences. I am a bio-science student turned into management post graduate; pursuing a career into IT pre-sales and Sales. Was much incfluenced and impresed by George Gregor Mendel, the father of Genetics and Genetics was one of my favorite subjects. Let me keep this apart..

Had taken up an e-mail campaign for one of the Defect Management Tool (RADAR). The response was so poor as I kept on targetting the niche audiance in the market, viz . Quality Heads, Project Managers and Delivery Heads. After reading the sentence “Why focus exclusively on convincing a few influential people when there are so many people around them? “, realized how important is “reaching as many people as possible”.

Thanks Greg for this article. If you could share the links / articles where P&G and Miller beer stories of implementing this strategy would be great. May be I can get some tips on how to improve the marketing skills and strategies!!

Cheers,
Jyoti