When Viral Doesn’t Hit Virally

Why most cultural shifts don’t spread like viruses … and why your influencer playbook is broken.

Remember that scene in Planet of the Apes when Patient Zero walks through the airport and the map lights up showing hubs, flight paths, spread in real time? That’s the metaphor we’ve all used for influence: treat it like a virus, hit the biggest hubs, let it cascade.

That works for simple contagions like: memes, headlines, and gossip. One exposure and you’re “infected.” But Damon Centola showed us the part everyone misses: most behaviors that actually matter are complex contagions. They don’t spread because a hub sneezed on everyone. They spread because clusters reinforce each other until adoption feels safe, legitimate, and identity-coherent.

Translation: the contagion itself decides who’s influential. Not the follower count. Not the billboard. The thing that’s spreading.

What That Looks Like in the Real World

Stanley Cup: Centrality Migrates

Stanley didn’t pop because a mega-celebrity posted it. Dense mom networks did the identity work first—sidelines, group chats, pickup lines. When it became safe, stylish, symbolic, celebs joined in. Centrality moved from everyday clusters → up the hierarchy.

The Barber: Central for What?

Your barber can be central for local, trust-based referrals (advisor, contractor) and irrelevant for crypto. Same person, different contagion. Centrality is contextual.

Buffett vs. The Rock: Authority vs. Reach

Buffett whispers and markets move. Finance is an authority contagion—his legitimacy is the reinforcement. The Rock’s platform is massive, but in finance his centrality collapses. Domain matters.

Formula 1: The Netflix Mirage

Drive to Survive was exposure (the airport map lighting up). The spread came from aspiration + tribe signaling: cosmopolitan cool, high-performance identity, fandom you can broadcast. Dense aspirational clusters made it safe—then amplified it.

To the Industry: You’re Paying for the Wrong Thing

Most “influencer marketing” is built on virus logic: bigger reach = bigger impact. That’s fine for simple contagions. But if your category is identity-heavy like fashion, wellness, parenting, lifestyle…you’re in complex territory. Reach without reinforcement burns money.

Micro-influencers work not because they’re cheap, but because they sit inside dense communities. Their 10k followers aren’t random; they’re a tribe. When they recommend, it lands as peer validation, not celebrity broadcast.

Does your influencer strategy team map cluster density or just chase vanity metrics? Do they talk about simple vs. complex contagion at all?

Challenger Brands = Complex Contagion, By Definition

Challenger brands ask people to abandon the safe choice and perform a new identity. That’s high symbolic load and high social risk…classic complex contagion.

If I tell you:

• “Switch from Apple to Android.”
• “Vote for a different political party.”
• “Change from a Red Sox fan to a Yankees fan.”

…are you really flipping on one my request? Of course not. Those asks carry huge symbolic load and identity risk. They’re the definition of complex contagion: it would take multiple reinforcements across your trusted clusters before you’d even consider it.

You don’t topple incumbents with a single celebrity post. You win by orchestrating dense peer reinforcement until switching signals who I am now.

The B2B Reality Check (Where Mistakes Get Expensive)

Enterprise buying is peak complex contagion. Decision makers carry career risk. “Nobody gets fired for buying IBM” exists for a reason.

This is why B2B still runs on relationships, references, councils, Slack communities, conferences—dense trust networks—more than on “influencer” spends. A CTO needs peer reinforcement from other CTOs, not a LinkedIn celebrity.

The Trevor Lawrence Principle: In the NFL draft, the “safe” pick defends the GM. B2B buyers do the same. If you’re a startup selling against the incumbent, your job is to lower symbolic/career risk via clusters of respected adopters—not louder billboards.

Put It All Together

• Simple contagions → hubs matter. (Exposure-driven)
• Complex contagions → clusters matter. (Reinforcement-driven)
• Authority contagions → domain legitimacy matters. (Buffett not The Rock)
• Performative layers → meaning migrates. (People, tribes, even objects can become central)

The contagion decides who matters. Most of what shapes culture and markets today lives on the complex side.

What To Do Tomorrow

1. Diagnose the contagion. Is your ask simple or complex? Identity-light or identity-heavy?
2. Map clusters, not just stars. Find dense communities where reinforcement can compound.
3. Design for reinforcement. References, community proof, rituals, visible use are things that make adoption feel safe and broadcastable.
4. Target transitions. New job, new city, new parents, etc are liminal states = signal hunger.
5. Measure broadcast adoption, not impressions. Who is showing the switch, and where is it compounding?

TLDR;

Influence isn’t about who shouts the loudest. It’s about who makes it safe, legitimate, and meaningful to move…and that answer changes with the thing that’s spreading.

So stop asking “Who are the influencers?” Start asking “Central for what?” And if your team can’t answer that, you’re paying for reach when you should be paying for reinforcement.

‍