Big Seed?

I recently listened to Duncan Watts on the HBR IdeaCast (a podcast from Harvard Business Review). An online executive summary addressing the same topic can be seen here. Watts, Sociology Prof at Columbia, claims the epidemic analogy is flawed, using the simple equation to illustrate if the infection (reproduction) rate is greater than one. While the use and application of viral has been flawed, it is unfortunate that Watts brings forth a seemingly more flawed analogy to present a novel idea to promote his research. Watts does a good job of simplifying his approach and gives part of the description of an epidemic - if growth is greater than one than the spread can be exponential; if less than one, the spread will burn out. As readers of the blog know, I see “viral” misused or misunderstood by many marketers and advertisers that want the benefits of viral campaigns, but not sure how to fuel the campaign. However, I don’t need it replaced by one equally or more flawed. For me, viral is to big seed as Catholic is to Protestant in Portrait of the Artist when Cranly asks Stephen if he intends to become a Protestant:

I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

Watts looks to introduce "Big Seed” marketing – basically, viral + augmented campaign. Not a bad idea, but a bit more illogical and incoherent than viral.

I don’t disagree with Watts – yet, Big Seed is a bit flawed as well, and perhaps as overly simplified has he’s portrayed viral. From a “viral” standpoint, big seed isn’t as descriptive or easy to share (reproduce). What Watts fails to mention, at least in the interview, is a notion of time, or lifecycle for the seed or epidemic, and what percentage of a population is infected, and what the growth rate/reproduction rate of the population as a whole. Additionally, big seed doesn’t address the concept of inoculation. Given what’s missing, I think viral is a more accurate and easy to share analogy to understand the organic, potentially infectious, nature of messages, ideas, and symbolic identities.

Communication messages and campaigns can be augmented by “viral” efforts. Viral alone is not sufficient. But then again, I "have read little and understand less.”