Facebook trends mirror epidemic pattern of growth and decline
by Steffan Berelowitz
Steffan Berelowitz founded Bit Group, Inc. in 1995, and over its 14-year history has helped to develop a client list of Fortune 500, mid-market and emerging businesses. In addition to his responsibilities at Bit Group, Steffan served as a trustee of the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council (MA Software Council) from 2001-2006. Steffan served on the board of directors of the Jewish Community Centers of Greater Boston as the chair of the advisory board of the Center for Information Technology of Hebrew College. Steffan is a member of the Boston College Technology Council. He is also a member of the Technology Network, a national network of senior executives from the nation's leading technology companies. Steffan served as an Internet consultant to former senator and presidential candidate Senator Bill Bradley. A graduate of Boston College, Steffan has spent the past 15 years in online services and technology. In 1993, Steffan was one of the key founders of ArtNet.
See other posts by Steffan Berelowitz
As it turns out, according to research conducted by Chris Wilson at Slate and Prof. Lauren Ancel Meyers at the University of Texas, the “25 random things about me” trend on Facebook mirrors the “classic exponential growth of an epidemic curve.” By way of background, many people on Facebook have been writing down 25 random things about themselves and then tagging 25 people with whom the information is shared. 
As it turns out, each author is “contagious,” because among the recipients of the message, a predictable number of them produce a list of their own, and in turn, tag another 25 people. The pattern of growth across the system follows a classic viral marketing curve that Prof. Meyers says replicates an epidemiological system exactly. Here is the original article.
It would be interesting to study further the pattern of growth within viral marketing systems and the factors that contribute to the speed of that growth and decline. For example, if we were tagging only 10 people, not 25, would the “virus” spread more slowly, but nevertheless, reach the same level of adoption within the system, just at a slower pace? For example, once the trend has run its course, if 18% of Facebook users ultimately create a “25 random things” page, would that number remain the same if we tagged 10, not 25 people (tagging 10 people takes less effort)? Alternatively, would more (or less) people participate if you only had to tag 10 friends instead of 25? In the world of social computing, there are many potential levers to create viral growth, and we’re just beginning to understand what works best and how to optimize the effects.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Hi Steffan,
Hope all is well with you, definitely a thought provoking article, but I think they could have taken the metaphor a bit farther. I am NOT a microbiologist, but it is my understanding that as infectious organisms evolve, they become less and less lethal so that they can maximize the long term viability of the organisms type. By that measure, 25 things was a bit of an evolutionary dead end (in that it is effectively “over”). My thought is that just as some formerly infectious organisms have now evolved to a state where they have a symbiotic relationship with the host, the ultimate evolutionary state of a Facebook meme would be to become a feature or application. In an case, thanks for the pointer to the article.
Dave