Sneezers not as influential as we thought?

Please, understand this is my regurgitation, read the paper, read Mark Earl's insightful post.
For me though this is exciting stuff that is counter to existing
marketing dogma, and many of the ideas I've relied on for my work. Time
for a rethink?



I've been following what Mark Earls has been saying about Herd Thinking here



Today he references a paper by Duncan J. Watts and Peter Sheridan Dodds that researched such behaviour. The premise is this:

A central idea in marketing and diffusion research is that influentials—a minority of individuals who influence an exceptional number of their peers—are important to the formation of public opinion.

In short [and I'm no rocket scientist] the results as I interpret them are that the influencers aren't as influential as we've made them out to be.



Mark has blogged some highlights here: Herd - the hidden truth about who we are: Forest fires and influence

What matters not is who is particularly influential but rather who is particularly susceptible to being influenced. This he captures in the memorable image of forest fires:



"Some forest fires, for example, are many times larger than average; yet no-one would claim that the size of a forest fire can be in any way attributed to the exceptional properties of the spark that ignited it, or the size of the tree that was the first to burn. Major forest fires require a conspiracy of wind, temperature, low humidity, and combustible fuel that extends over large tracts of land. Just as for large cascades in social influence networks, when the right global combination of conditions exists, any spark will do; and when it does not, none will suffice"