Why do some things go viral?

Since the dawn of the internet, scientists have been trying to understand why some things go viral. And others don’t.

What unethical bot farms have long known, and science is coming to realise, is that positivity and truth are secondary.

The primary factor is: ‘Is it important to me?’

That is, the likelihood of me reading and sharing, (or just sharing!) a piece of content depends on whether or not it’s coherent with my idea of myself. And if not myself directly, then people that I know.

On a simple level, ‘Five ways to get better sleep’ might go viral. Everyone sleeps. Nearly everyone would like to sleep better.

More malign is something like ‘Women over 40 have no chance of progress in this career’. It’s more targeted (‘women’, ‘over 40’) so will resonate more sharply with that audience. The career in question isn’t specified so I’m more likely to click through to learn more. Why? Because the headline drips with negative emotion. 

‘No chance’. ‘No progress’. I need to click to see if my career path is the one in question. 

Loss aversion is understood to be a more powerful motivator than gain. Any woman over 40 nervous about her career prospects is likely to click. Anyone who knows a woman who fits the criteria might be tempted to share the link with a friend.

Simple, negative tactics that prey on our attention system. Used cynically. But successfully.

There is a silver lining. Look harder, and there are lessons for us all here. One lingering challenge of internal communications (for example) has always been how to celebrate departmental successes. Case studies are often very popular with the department that did the work. Less so with the wider company. 

Could this latest study show a direction for how we could better frame departmental success? 

Sure. If case study posts are popular with the department that completed the work, less so with other departments, the study provides a foundation of evidence for how to redress that.

For example: Case studies could be targeted with key takeaways for each department they affect.

Or: Headlines could be targeted to encourage communication between departments to fully understand the implications. 

Instead of ‘UX department completes new product designs’, what about ‘Here’s what the latest product designs mean for Customer Service’.

There might be good reasons to avoid mentioning those who did the work up front in the headline. Especially if the goal is to promote that department.

It might sound counterintuitive, but science suggests that we’re all much more likely to click and share something that’s clearly marked ‘for us’.

What do you think? Would you feel comfortable namechecking another department in a case study about your work?