The Toppling Point
By Leo Ryan October 19th, 2006
In Stories
For those of you who didn’t see the front page picture or the full page article inside last week - The London Paper:
Liverpool Street station turned into a giant club on Wednesday night, with crowds of flash dancers mobbing the main concourse. But there were no throbbing speakers or irate neighbours, with the crowd programming their own tunes on their own MP3s, in silence, (more or less). The internet-driven gig kicked off at precisely 7:24 pm; included a celebratory countdown for the first hour mark - and most surreally, the repeated roars of approval from the crowd.
This particular event is displaying all of the hallmarks of having become viral because it has been;
1. Photographed and put up on flickr
2. Filmed by consumers and posted on YouTube
3. The YouTube video is then turning up in blogs
4. And now the cool trend scouts are talking about it.
Does the fact that this event has been picked up by The London Paper mean that it’s tipped and gone mainstream? Has it’s virality made it a victim of its own success? And if so what are the implications? Will we see a brand trying to jump on the bandwagon? Why not? It’s a great opportunity to create a unique (and very low cost) event, it generates amazing word of mouth and traditional PR value, creates free content for a site, and has a truly viral build up and then aftermath.
Once an event or idea crosses the chasm from cool to mainstream does it then pass through that stage and finally topple; becoming passe?
And is apearing in The London Paper a sign of this?
Have a lovely day - and remember to dance a little on the way home.
1 Mat Morrison // Oct 19, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Of course, the trendwatcher you mention was in on the prank beforehand (I noticed the post lower down on the page where he advertised the whole thing).
I don’t know if this will actually “go viral”. What - after all - is your definition? Do you mean “lots of other mobile clubbing events will begin to appear around the world”. Or do you mean “lots of people who weren’t there will hear about it”?
The Daily Mail, of course reckons this is the “latest internet craze.” The Guardian attributes it more sigificance, calling it “more than a fad.”
But, let’s face it. This is a 2004 variation on flashmobbing (2003) that resurfaces about once every year. It’s not so much a viral craze, more like that sniffle that keeps coming back after you thing you’ve kicked it.
Here’s the infection-cycle:
Posts that contain “mobile Clubbing” per day for the last 30 days.
2 Leo Ryan // Oct 19, 2006 at 8:26 pm
What I mean is that lots of people who weren’t there will hear about it; readers of The London Paper for example, a much broader socio/behavioural sample than the readers of the trends site. The message about the Flash Mob will go viral. One of the results of this might be that Flash Mobbing itself goes viral, but it’s hard to imagine a mainstream audience bursting into dance. For me this is more like the press around the bird flu then the bird flu itself.
3 Mat Morrison // Oct 20, 2006 at 9:14 am
I agree; and I think that this is one of those cases where the meme, and the thing are almost indistinguishable.
Now, let’s take the case of a short video intended to be spread from user to user. If my advertisement spreads successfully (let’s say - on average - each recipient sends it to 1.1 people in their network until such time as the susceptible audience has been saturated) have I, in fact, promoted anything other than my advertisement?
The important thing to think about here is the “viral payload” - the effect that the advertisement has on the recipient. If a virus spreads throughout the population, but has no noticeable effect on behaviour, can it be said to have succeeded?
Traditional advertising is intended to change the perceptions that affect behaviour. By this I mean “real world” behaviours, such as “”buying”, “trialling”, “buying more regularly”, or “using more often and in different ways”
The behaviour that viral advertising concentrates on is “sending to a friend”.
There’s an old saying “To know something and not to act is the same as not knowing.” We can’t assess the impact of viral advertising through “the number of people who were exposed”. We can only assess it in terms of “the number of people who were exposed and got sick.”
Ago, ergo sum - I act, therefore I am.
4 jamescoops // Oct 20, 2006 at 10:08 am
thanks for calling me cool ;-)
I think part of the reason the mobile clubbing kicked off this time is that the word was spread through sites like Dontstayin, as well as via email. Also, there’s an interesting feedback effect here - this time around everyone can post photos on flickr and DSI, videos on youtube etc amplifying the original event
5 Mat Morrison // Oct 24, 2006 at 8:05 pm
As an important aside, it turns out that there may be no need for the neologism “toppling point”; there’s already a term used in conjunction with “peak oil”: the topping point.
I like your phrase better. Although, it may be hard to prove ownership. Kevin Salwen seems to have got the jump by a couple of years. And Tom Shales got there before him.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
6 richard // Oct 30, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I’m with toppling point myself.
7 23^7!1 // Dec 14, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Hello…
Could you please tell me how I can find our about the next ‘flash mob’ BEFORE it happens ??
Cheers,
~23^7!1