ScottGould.me

02.03.2010 Concepts, Marketing and Branding, Social MediaView Comments

Spreadability: The New Sensibility

In my article PR 2010 I discuss a framework that looks not at reach, depth or views but spreadability as the new sensibility for marketing.

Think about it. Direct reach gets you in front of eyes. But with so much coming in front of eyes everyday, why spend so much money to be just another message?

New PR 2010 Framework, Draft #1

The things that gets word of mouth and word of mouse today becomes what we call viral. The message is one that lends itself to being shared amongst friends, amongst networks, and amongst communities.

Things that are viral and high spreadability are often very sticky. They stick in front of your eyes, as opposed to being one of the many messages that pass them.

The Cost of Spreadability

The great news about Spreadbility as the new sensibility is that it costs far less than reach. Direct reach on TV, radio, print, etc, will cost you a lot of money for a crowded moment in front of the eyes. But spreadability doesn’t cost that much cash – it costs time and thought.

The local restaurant doesn’t have to spend money it doesn’t have on reach if it can creatively make a special offer spreadable. And how will it spread? Though the existing network of brand advocates (Seth Godin calls them sneezers) who pass the message on.

In order to have higher spreadability we need to stop governing the message and start guiding it. As long as our hands are tightly holding the message, others can’t take it and share it to others. The sneezers can only sneeze the message if they can catch it and get it – own it – in order to pass it onto others.

Again – this is placing an emphasis on people not parts. Reach is really tied up in managing the process of the parts. Spreadability is about leading and developing people.

The Surprise of Spreadability

We’ll talk in the comings weeks about it more, but for now, you can read the whole article over here. My question to you though, hinges on the surpise of spreadability.

I often find that the things I want to spread don’t, and vice versas. I wondering if any of you have any thoughts about what makes something spreadable – and what surprises you’ve had over the things that did spread, and the things that didn’t.



  • Equating creativity, time and thoughts (expertise, strategy) with "low cost" is an error & diminishes creative work. The ultimate execution of a great idea might be "cheap", but the people power that makes it intelligent, surprising & viral is worth a lot.
  • From a corporate viewpoint, Social Comms are far cheaper than traditional reach and broadcast. I agree with what you are saying, but from a company or charity standpoint, the reality is that the costs are indeed reduced.
blog comments powered by Disqus