Viral Marketing Results Tipping The Point Step 2

There are a couple of experiments I'd like to highlight from Watts' work:

Watts conducted a re-enactment of a famous experiment (known as "The Six Degrees of Separation" study) conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1967.

Milgram conducted this study with a relatively small sample of people and showed how we are roughly separated by 6 people in the world to anyone else in the world.

This much was agreed upon by Watts re-enactment.

The Watts study differed in conclusion however%u2026

The original Milgram experiment saw how roughly 50% of the letters reaching the intended recipient went through as Gladwell would call them "Connectors" - social hubs.

This seemed to verify "The Influentials" theory but the results Watts witnessed were far different.

He conducted his experiment on a far larger sample and found these "connectors" resulted in only some 5% of the results - in other words, word of mouth is far more democratic than previously thought.

In 2006, Watts conducted another experiment which had rather startling results and implications for the music industry specifically and the marketing world at large.

This time, he ran an experiment with some 14000 people "voting" on their favorite of a control group of 48 music bands.

The 14000 people were split up into 9 groups, 1 control group who ranked the bands without influence from others and the 8 other groups ranked bands but were able to see what each other thought.

In the control group, the popularity of the 48 bands was roughly equal - no clear cut winner, each were liked by the fans on purely merit terms and as there were no "dire" bands, they each accrued their own fan-base - relatively equally.

The real "shocker" came from the 8 control groups - there were clear winners in each and every group, the problem was the winners were all different.

So what was the common denominator?

Those bands who got early momentum in their respective groups (i.e. the best ratings/thumbs up) were the ones who rose to the top.

The most important conclusions drawn by Watts on his work are:
* Influencers (be they Connectors, Mavens, Salesmen or Sneezers) are not as "influential" in starting and spreading "idea viruses" as was previously thought

* Society as a whole has to be "ready" to adopt the trend/idea. There are initiatives which launched in the past and failed would have succeeded at a different future date purely because the context of virus spread/release is different. Every idea does indeed have its day.

* You should use a "big seed" approach to your viral campaigns. This means if you have a large number of people to start with, the results you achieve will be impressive even if you do not hit the magic number "1" in terms of viral reproduction.

Sneezers/Influencers/Mavens/Salesmen are indeed important when you mount a marketing campaign but you cannot rely on a select few to "spread the word".

Include them in your strategy for sure but they are a tactic to employ rather than a strategy to execute.

There is a concept called "Social Proof" mentioned in Robert Cialdini's book which I believe is crucial to "getting the ball rolling" and indeed maintaining the marketing momentum you are looking to employ.

We have seen it in action when the 8 control groups were allowed to interact with each other in Watt's experiment.

It is crucial you build up a head of steam with other people, and these "influential others" are those most like us (our peers) as well as those in authority figures (the traditionally accepted "influencers").

The trick is to get the ball rolling, get visibility in the right environment and away you go...

If only it were as easy as "away you go...".

In reality, there are a number of factors you need to have in place. Will you know for sure which strategy/tactic/factor will push your message into viral territory? Will you care indeed (Hint YES!)? You are interested in the end result after all.

This is why I believe you need to look at your marketing from a military perspective.

There is a concept known as "The Force Multiplier Effect", put simply - you bring to bear massive and overwhelming force to achieve your objective.

In the case of the military this is a destructive force (to obliterate a target), in your case it is a constructive one to get your message out and moving.

In either case, you will not necessarily know what the "tipping point" was because of "too many variables" and a multiplicative effect.

That said, you'll still want to test and track your results.