<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>JCR's Place &#187; Gestión</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rubin-de-celis.com/blog/category/gestion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rubin-de-celis.com/blog</link>
	<description>Mi pequeño espacio en Internet ...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:18:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Viral Marketing vs. Wild Fires</title>
		<link>http://www.rubin-de-celis.com/blog/2008/02/04/viral-marketing-vs-wild-fires/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rubin-de-celis.com/blog/2008/02/04/viral-marketing-vs-wild-fires/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JCR</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gestión]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rubin-de-celis.com/blog/2008/02/04/viral-marketing-vs-wild-fires/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After reading The Influentials (Berry and Keller, 2003) and the Tipping Point (Gladwell, 2002), one is lead to believe that there are only a few persons who are “hubs” or “gatekeepers” that control the amount of information that flows in a social network, and that if you reach those few influentials you are far more [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After reading The Influentials (Berry and Keller, 2003) and the Tipping Point (Gladwell, 2002), one is lead to believe that there are only a few persons who are “hubs” or “gatekeepers” that control the amount of information that flows in a social network, and that if you reach those few influentials you are far more likely to start what viral marketing calls a “contagion”. This is of course an extremely attractive idea for its simplicity and the potential impact that a well-focused marketing campaign can have. After all, if you can secure the endorsement of a few well-known “opinion leaders”, “influentials”or “trend setters”, you are more likely to sell whatever it is that you are selling, even if it is a lousy product.</p>
<p>But (there is always a &#8216;but&#8217;), I&#8217;ve always found hard to believe that things are so simple, after all if things were as Gladwell says they are, all marketing firms should be trying to get “influentials” on their clients&#8217; payroll and nothing more. Recently Watts has shown evidence to the contrary, i.e. that a random person in a network is as likely to start a trend as any “influential”. Using computer simulations and field experiments, he offers some hard evidence that support his claims and he criticizes the disease metaphor used by viral marketing. He is now proposing a different kind of metaphor; he compares trends with wild fires, and he argues that any single match can start a devastating fire given the right environmental conditions – low humidity, strong winds, etc. –. Though, he accepts the fact that influentials have a greater impact on the amplitude of the wave or trend.</p>
<p>Naturally, Watts has found strong opposition (specially from big-bucks corporate North-America) since he seems to be attacking what has been considered common wisdom in many marketing circles. The dispute is far from being settled any time soon, but having an opposing view will surely make it much more interesting. Watts has adopted a humble position, and he claims that his intension is to show that the world is a much more complex environment than what many people like to believe (or would like to make us believe).</p>
<p>The “trend-setter” perspective is based on the assertion that “one person in 10 tells the other 9 how to vote, where to eat, and what to buy”, on the other hand, in my opinion, what Watts is trying to say is that it is far more important the willingness to hear  of the 9 (environmental conditions) than who the tenth person is (or what her apparent influence is); the 9 are willing to vote like the tenth person, eat what she eats and buy what she buys only if all these things make sense to them at that particular point in time, and not because of who the “spark that started the fire” is.</p>
<p>Granted, the solution, as with so many other things in management may be in the gray area rather than being black or white, but is certainly encouraging that taken-for-granted notions can still be challenged. That is, I believe, the only way to advance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rubin-de-celis.com/blog/2008/02/04/viral-marketing-vs-wild-fires/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

