Mythbusting: Ideas Do Not Spread Because they are Good

I’d like to debunk a myth that has gone on, rampant and unchallenged in marketing circles, especially viral and social marketing, for some time now, but first I feel a few caveats are in order.

First: product quality is important, no amount of marketing will alchemize a bad product into a good one. Second: even the most virulent of viral marketing campaigns can leave a brand or product right where it started. And third: I acknowledge that far too often the term “viral” is thrown around, misunderstood and slathered on like a panacea, but most of the people who do this, also attempt to ruin many other good concepts with psuedo-science and smoke-and-mirrors.

Now the myth: For an idea, piece of content or product to spread or (cringe) “go viral” it has to be a great product. This is WRONG.

When Richard Dawkins coined the term meme in 1976 (over three decades ago and before I was born) he said:

Remember that `survival value’ here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool.

That book, The Selfish Gene, posited (and largely put the argument to bed) that genes replicate for their own good, not the good of the host. Genes survive and thrive not based on how much value they bring to the creature they inhabit but based on how good they are at replicating, they’re selfish. There are plenty of genes who’s phenotypes produce negative results for their hosts, yet they continue to spread.

The same is true, and perhaps even more obviously, for memes. Auto-toxic memes are harmful to their host, and exo-toxic memes are dangerous to others. The list of virulently “adopted” bad ideas is endless, but here’s a small sample:

  • Blood feuds
  • Terrorism
  • Suicide
  • Drug abuse
  • Antisemitism
  • Pyramid schemes
  • Cults

Daniel Dennett gave a talk on harmful memes at TED in 2002:

So clearly, ideas do not spread based on their “quality” or the “value” they provide, in fact they have an entirely different set of selection criteria, which Francis Heylighen has detailed.

Perhaps finally we can rid ourselves of the admittedly quaint and comforting notion that we only adopt ideas, content and products because of how good and useful they are and start to understand that we adopt them because they are good at getting adopted.

Read More

A Box of Crayons, Not a Rubber Stamp

One of the most interesting things I learned from my study of urban legends is the concept of communal recreation. In the urban legend post I said this:

Each person in this recreative chain attempts to fit the story into their existing mental frameworks and in doing so they apply a bit of themselves, of their own values and perspectives, altering the story and retelling their version.

And for viral and social marketers, this idea should be fundamental to everything we do. The campaigns we build and the brands we manage must become platforms for users to express themselves with, each person that touches our messages should be recreating them, “applying a bit of themselves, of their own values and perspectives.”

Your brand must be a box of crayons, not just a rubber stamp. The examples of successful viral and social media marketing efforts (and non-marketing memes) using this strategy are numerous, including: Elf Yourself, Simpsonize Me, I Can Has Cheezburger, and The South Park Facebook App, just to name a few off the top of my head.

Personally I’ve developed the Geekflirt Lolcat Maker, and I’ve been involved in the pitching and development of a few other of these kinds of box-of-crayons type campaigns. I’d also love to hear any other examples you might know of.

Update: I forgot that I’d written about this for Jonathan Bailey’s Plagiarism Today.

Read More

Sneak Peek at Content Sharing Survey Report

I did a sneak peak of my Link Attraction Factors report, and Alanisgood asked for a peak at my data from the upcoming content sharing survey report, so here it is:

This first graph shows the differences between the types of content non-Twitter users share individually and what Twitter-addicts share.

And this graph shows the difference in individual content sharing frequency between frequent blog readers and those people who don’t read blogs (yes, there are still some of those around).

I’m hard at work on the report, and hope to have it out very soon, in the meantime let me know what you think of the data so far and anything you’d especially like to see.

Read More