Comments on: Zarrella’s Hierarchy of Contagiousness

By: Size Matters: How a Large Online Network Can Transform You, Your Marketing, and Your Business | The SocialGrow Blog

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:17:40 +0000

[...] Additional Reading “It all starts with having the largest possible audience.” -Dan Zarrella, Hierarchy of Contagiousness “Marketers must connect on social networks with people they don’t know, namely their [...]

By: John Haydon

John Haydon — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:08:26 +0000

The point of this post is to outline a framework for how content spreads online. Dan assumes that we can plug in our own numbers.

By: John Haydon

John Haydon — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:05:24 +0000

Dan – I'm really curious about this model you've created (it's a very novel idea… ), and I especially like your point of changing numbers in our favor.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Wed, 12 May 2010 17:32:47 +0000

Hi Dan,
I'm with some of Richard's comments on this one. Maybe it's the choice of word; contagiousness

18 out of 900 doesn't sound very contagious, certainly not in the 'viral' world?

By: Justin Kownacki - Sorry Guys: When It Comes to Your Audience, Size DOES Matter

Justin Kownacki - Sorry Guys: When It Comes to Your Audience, Size DOES Matter — Mon, 03 May 2010 05:04:00 +0000

[...] Zarrella created a graph he calls Zarrella’s Hierarchy of Contagiousness, which says that in order for a message to be successful, it must [...]

By: Creative Concepts - Is Your Company Afraid to Matter?

Creative Concepts - Is Your Company Afraid to Matter? — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:02:47 +0000

[...] the numbers on social media than anyone else we know. He recently proposed something he calls Zarrella’s Hierarchy of Contagiousness, which breaks down [...]

By: tim diaz

tim diaz — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:11:37 +0000

Very creative Dan! Just a fun fact, if you ever need a yacht or boat shipped anywhere, Yacht Exports is your best bet. They have done a great job with me!

By: Electronic Cigarette Girl

Electronic Cigarette Girl — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:51:49 +0000

Ill be developing my fb and myspace profiles based on this and will know if it works or not haha jk. Im sure its great advice, I just have to apply it.

-Bella

By: KINGRPG

KINGRPG — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:06:47 +0000

I like that you think. Thank you for share very much.

By: Nathan Clendenin

Nathan Clendenin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:48:25 +0000

I would assume the graph above can be applied again with each of the 18 people who retweet your content to their followers (exposure). While the 18 are indeed increasing your exposure, the contagiousness is always diminishing. But if somebody with tons of followers and clout retweets you then your exposure goes up again and instead of 18 you have like 200 people retweeting and the virus starts spreading...

I'm pulling this out of my arse, but maybe you can think of it like riding a bicycle. As you peddle, you move forward. Without more peddling you coast to a stop. Your forward movement represents your contagiousness. It's always fighting gravity and friction to stop. If your exposure is low, it's like your not peddling. If your awareness or motivation are low then it's like you're going uphill. If your exposure is good then you're peddling hard and if you're awareness and motivation are great you're also on a downhill picking up speed!

Not sure if that analogy works or is even accurate, but it was helpful to me. This stuff is fascinating to learn about.

By: ckwrites2

ckwrites2 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:15:20 +0000

marvelous adaptation of the classic sales funnel, or as I like to call it the social media marketing funnel – interesting to see that self selection and relevance remain the driving forces. wondering Dan if this also relates to the very brief half life of a tweet and even more so a retweet?

By: Dan Zarrella

Dan Zarrella — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:46:27 +0000

If 900 people see your content, maybe 18 will share it with others.

By: richardlebovitz

richardlebovitz — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:20:57 +0000

The graphic shows the conversion rate for a piece of content delivered via Twitter or email, and that this rate diminishes more or less based on the three criteria you describe. That much I understand. What I'm saying is that most people view social media as a way to expand reach, whereas your model shows a contraction. While what those initial 900 and the next 180 are a concern, I'm curious about those remaining 18 and where they fit into the equation, in other words, how do we leverage that initial 900 into, say, 1,800. I believe you've already answered that question as it relates to “content,” “relevancy” and “call to action.”

By: Dan Zarrella

Dan Zarrella — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:01:36 +0000

Richard,
I assume you read my post, what did I say the graph showed?

By: richardlebovitz

richardlebovitz — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:00:36 +0000

Doesn't the viral nature of social media assume one to many exponential growth? Your schematic instead shows diminishing growth, arguing that growth isn't a given in a social meeting campaign, at least not from the starting point you describe. If this is the way social media works, instead of the conventional view, then maybe the starting point is not the 900 but the 18 who redistribute the information to their friends, who then in turn redistribute to their friends, and so on. Or am I missing something in your illustration?