Viral is not the same as popular
This lovely man has found himself the centre of attention for his wry observations on life in Smalltown Britain.
Why? Because his post was so compelling? Compared to all the other things his network could share? Really?
Was it “viral” in the sense of something “infectious”? Or was it just fun enough to get over the initial hurdle of diffusion (attention of those who saw it early)?
Did it spread because of some innate quality? Or, was it good enough and just get lucky? Like SUBO did.
Let’s not mix up “virality” (an infectious phenomenon) and “spread”. It’s a nice piece but if you were to do what Stephen Jay Gould* called “replaying the tape” of history (in reference to the unlikely probability that Homo sapiens emerged from evolution) would this post always spread? Often? Or, just occasionally?
If your answer is anything but “YES EVERY SINGLE TIME” it’s probably not a viral thing – just good enough, popular and lucky.
Comments