Contagious: Why Things Catch On (26 page)

5. Discuss how you think sharing today compares to sharing 30 years ago. What about our digital culture has made things different? Has sharing
decreased
in any way?

Sharing today is certainly different in some ways. There is less face-to-face interaction with our friends and family, so we talk more over the phone or through the web. Research shows that this decreases some of the benefits of social interaction. Warm interpersonal contact reduces stress, but things like texting don’t have the same effect. Do we share less? Doubtful, but we do share differently.

6. The nature of current commercials seems more and more “off-brand,” as companies create non-sequitur and nonsensical ads to elicit a laugh or capitalize on “irony.” Are they failing to follow the STEPPS? Is there remarkability to silliness un-related to product? (Unlike the Panda in the food store).

Funny ads are great. And as a consumer, I love to watch them. But if the goal is not just to make people laugh, but to get them to buy something, then valuable virality becomes vital. People will share funny or ironic ads, but at the end of the day it doesn’t help the company if the consumer has no idea what the ad was for.

7. Do you think most STEPPS happen at the unconscious level, or do you believe people create things with these fundamental human behaviors in mind?

People are more aware of some of the STEPPS than others. Practical Value? We see that every day. Social Currency? We see it in others all the time (even if it’s hard to see in ourselves). But we are less aware of how Triggers or Public affects our behavior.

8. Is there something to be said for over-saturation? Can a good method of viral sharing exhaust itself in our fast-as-lightning culture?

There is a key difference between psychology and marketing tactics. We may get over-saturated with a particular tactic (e.g., pop-up ads or a certain style of ad) but the underlying psychology that drove us to like it still remains. If every company makes their product “scarce” consumers will start to catch on, but does that mean we’ll stop valuing scarcity altogether? Probably not.

9. Is one element of STEPPS more vital than the others?

No one of the STEPPS is most important, but certain ones are definitely easier to apply in certain situations. It’s easier to leverage Public if you have a physical product. It’s easier to use Emotion if you sell something related to children or animals. But the key is not just using the easy STEPPS. Trying to incorporate the more difficult ones will really boost their impact.

10. Have you ever eaten the $100 cheesesteak at Barclay’s?

Yes. I highly recommend it.

© DEBORAH FEINGOLD

JONAH BERGER
is the James G. Campbell Assistant Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He has published dozens of articles in top-tier academic journals, and popular accounts of his work have appeared in places like
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Science, Harvard Business Review, Wired, BusinessWeek
, and
Fast Company.
His research has also been featured in
The New York Times Magazine
’s annual “Year in Ideas” issue. Berger has been recognized with awards for both scholarship and teaching, including being named Wharton’s “Iron Prof.” He lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

MEET THE AUTHORS, WATCH VIDEOS AND MORE AT

SimonandSchuster.com

JACKET DESIGN BY BEN WISEMAN

JACKET PHOTOGRAPH BY GETTY

COPYRIGHT © 2013 SIMON & SCHUSTER

We hope you enjoyed reading this Simon & Schuster eBook.

Join our mailing list and get updates on new releases, deals, bonus content and other great books from Simon & Schuster.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

or visit us online to sign up at
eBookNews.SimonandSchuster.com

Notes

Introduction: Why Things Catch On

Sixty percent are gone:
www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec1F07/restaurantsfail.pdf
.

“It was like eating gold”:
Taken from Barclay Prime’s Yelp page,
http://www.yelp.com/biz/barclay-prime-philadelphia
.

Most restaurants bomb:
Shane, Scott (2008), “Startup Failure Rates—The REAL numbers,”
Small Business Trends
, April 28,
http://smallbiztrends.com/2008/04/startup-failure-rates.html
.

People share more than 16,000 words:
See Mehl, Matthais R., Simine Vazire, Nairan Ramirez-Esparza, Richard B. Slatcher, and James W. Pennebaker (2007), “Are Women Really More Talkative Than Men?”
Science
317, 82.

100 million conversations about brands:
see Keller, Ed, and Barak Libai (2009), “A Holistic Approach to the Measurement of WOM,” presentation at ESOMAR Worldwide Media Measurement Conference, Stockholm (May 4–6).

We try websites our neighbors recommend:
see Trusov, Michael, Randolph E. Bucklin, and Koen Pauwels (2009), “Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site,”
Journal of Marketing
73 (September), 90–102.

Word of mouth is the primary factor:
Bughin, Jacques, Jonathan Doogan, and Ole Jørgen Vetvik (2010), “A New Way to Measure Word-of-Mouth Marketing,”
McKinsey Quarterly
(white paper).

Goel, Watts, and Goldstein 2012:
“The Structure of Online Diffusion
Networks,”
Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce
(EC ’12).

$200 increase in restaurant sales:
see Godes, David, and Dina Mayzlin (2009), “Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Study,”
Marketing Science
28, no. 4, 721–39.

twenty more books sold:
Chevalier, Judith, and Dina Mayzlin (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,”
Journal of Marketing Research
43, no. 3, 345–54.

Doctors are more likely:
Iyengar, Raghuram, Christophe Van den Bulte, and Thomas W. Valente (2011), “Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion,”
Marketing Science
30, no. 2, 195–212.

People are more likely:
Christakis, Nicholas A., and James Fowler (2009),
Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives
(New York: Little, Brown and Company).

while traditional advertising is still useful:
Stephen, Andrew, and Jeff Galak (2012), “The Effects of Traditional and Social Earned Media on Sales: A Study of a Microlending Marketplace,”
Journal of Marketing Research
(forthcoming); Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels, “Effects of Word-of-Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing.”

customers referred by their friends:
Schmitt, Philipp, Bernd Skiera, and Christophe Van den Bulte (2011), “Referral Programs and Customer Value,”
Journal of Marketing
75 (January), 46–59. See also
http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/27/social-proof-why-people-like-to-follow-the-crowd
.

Millions of people use these sites:
Eridon, Corey (2011), “25 Billion Pieces of Content Get Shared on Facebook Monthly,”
Hubspot Blog
, December 2,
http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/29407/25-Billion-Pieces-of-Content-Get-Shared-on-Facebook-Monthly-INFOGRAPHIC.aspx
.

The actual number is 7 percent:
This book provides a really nice perspective on the importance of face-to-face word of mouth: Keller, Ed, and Brad Fay (2012),
The Face-to-Face Book: Why Real Relationships Rule in a Digital Marketplace
(New York: Free Press).

Close to two hours a day:
See
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10421016-93.html
.

the average tweet:
Arthur, Charles (2009), “Average Twitter User has 126 Followers, and Only 20% of Users Go via Website,”
The Guardian
, March 29,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jun/29/twitter-users-average-api-traffic
.

offline discussions are more prevalent:
When thinking about whether
online or offline word of mouth will be more effective, also think about where the desired action is taking place. If you’re trying to get people to check out a website, then online word of mouth is great because the desired action is only a click away. The same thing is true with offline products or behaviors. Online word of mouth about pasta sauce is great, but people need to remember to buy it when they’re actually in the store, so offline word of mouth may be even better. Also think about whether and where people do research before they buy. While most people buy a car offline, they do a lot of research online and may make their decision before they ever step into the dealership. In those instances, online word of mouth may sway their decision.

Only one-third of 1 percent:
See
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-05-20/tech/30027787_1_tubemogul-videos-viral-hits
.

“by the efforts”:
Gladwell, Malcolm (2000),
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
(New York: Little, Brown).

“one in 10 Americans”:
Keller, Ed, and Jon Berry (2003),
The Influentials: One American in Ten Tells the Other Nine How to Vote, Where to Eat, and What to Buy
(New York: Free Press).

making things go viral:
Right now there is little good empirical evidence that people who have more social ties or who are more persuasive have a bigger impact on what catches on. See Bakshy, Eytan, Jake Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts (2011), “Everyone’s an Influencer: Quantifying Influence on Twitter,”
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
, Hong Kong; see also Watts, Duncan J., and Peter S. Dodds (2007), “Networks, Influence, and Public Opinion Formation,”
Journal of Consumer Research
34, no. 4, 441–58. Think about the last story someone told you that you passed on. Did you share it because the person who told you was really popular? Or because the story itself was so funny or surprising? Think about the last news article someone sent you that you forwarded on to someone else. Did you pass it along because the person who sent it was particularly persuasive? Or because you knew someone else would be interested in the information the story contained? In these and most other cases, the driving force behind word of mouth is the message, not the messenger.

Tom Dickson was looking for a new job:
Sauer, Patrick J. (2008), “Confessions of a Viral Video Superstar,”
Inc.
magazine, June 19. Go to
http://jonahberger.com
to see Tom blending an iPhone.

in 1999 Blendtec was founded:
See
http://donteattheshrimp.com/2007/07/03/will-it-blend-gets-blendtec-in-the-wsj/
and
http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=2391
for some good discussions of the early years at Blendtec.

1.
Social Currency

Brian decided:
Interviews with Brian Shebairo on May 16, 2012, and Jim Meehan on May 13, 2012.

40 percent of what people talk about:
Dunbar, Robert I. M., Anna Marriott, and N. D. C. Duncan (1997), “Human Conversational Behavior,”
Human Nature
8, no. 3, 231–44.

half of tweets are “me” focused:
Naaman, Mor, Jeffrey Boase, and Chih-Hui Lai (2010), “Is It Really About Me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams,”
Proceedings of the ACM Conference
, 189–92.

Jason Mitchell and Diana Tamir:
Tamir, Diana I., and Jason P. Mitchell (2012), “Disclosing Information About the Self Is Intrinsically Rewarding,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
109, no. 21, 8038–43.

We make educated guesses:
See Berger, Jonah, and Chip Heath (2008), “Who Drives Divergence? Identity Signaling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
95, no. 3, 593–605. See also Berger, Jonah, and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity Signaling and Product Domains,”
Journal of Consumer Research
34, no. 2, 121–34, for discussions of research in this area.

Prada handbag:
Wojnicki, Andrea C., and Dave Godes (2010), “Word-of-Mouth as Self-Enhancement,” University of Toronto working paper. See also De Angelis, Matteo, Andrea Bonezzi, Alessandro Peluso, Derek Rucker, and Michele Costabile (2012), “On Braggarts and Gossips: A Self-Enhancement Account of Word-of-Mouth Generation and Transmission,”
Journal of Marketing Research
, forthcoming.