big viral/little viral

A couple friends of mine have started a really cool thing over at CantWaitForChristmas.com. It’s even cooler for me because I have a general sense of who is posting despite the fact that most people only give a first name.

Conversely, there is a Facebook group which grew to over 1.6 million people in 48 hours. It’s called ‘Six Degrees of Separation - The Experiment’. I declined the invitation.

So what is the relationship between viral and value?

In the case of my friends’ site, a little less viral means a little more value. They’ll have an easier time building momentum within the first degree or two of the social graph, but is that their ceiling? Do they even mind?

The Six Degrees Experiment is also interesting in that the folks who join are part of something bigger than themselves. And yet, it didn’t appeal to me to be the 1,419,550th person involved. Are we counting upwards to 10 million? Downwards to 00:00:00? Does it even matter?

If the value you offer is entirely derived from participation, there needs to be a strong tie between “the ask” (i.e. join) and the feeling I’ll get from listening to you. This is why Facebook started with select campuses and still holds onto the concept of networks within networks - even at 47+ million people.

On a completely different note - I love seeing projects that are completely free of models, marketing and money. It makes me feel good inside - kind of like Christmas.

[Quick update: As expected, there is a little bit of monetization involved. Not enough to turn you off, just enough to remind you that Hallmark loves Christmas too. ]