Product diffusion through on-demand information-seeking behaviour

Most models of product adoption predict S-shaped adoption curves. Here we report results from two country-scale experiments in which we find linear adoption curves. We show evidence that the observed linear pattern is the result of active information-seeking behaviour: individuals actively pulling information from several central sources facilitated by modern Internet searches. Thus, a constant baseline rate of interest sustains product diffusion, resulting in a linear diffusion process instead of the S-shaped curve of adoption predicted by many diffusion models. The main experiment seeded 70 000 (48 000 in Experiment 2) unique voucher codes for the same product with randomly sampled nodes in a social network of approximately 43 million individuals with about 567 million ties. We find that the experiment reached over 800 000 individuals with 80% of adopters adopting the same product—a winner-take-all dynamic consistent with search engine driven rankings that would not have emerged had the products spread only through a network of social contacts. We provide evidence for (and characterization of) this diffusion process driven by active information-seeking behaviour through analyses investigating (a) patterns of geographical spreading; (b) the branching process; and (c) diffusion heterogeneity. Using data on adopters' geolocation we show that social spreading is highly localized, while on-demand diffusion is geographically independent. We also show that cascades started by individuals who actively pull information from central sources are more effective at spreading the product among their peers.

[1]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[2]  Piet Van Mieghem,et al.  Epidemic processes in complex networks , 2014, ArXiv.

[3]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter , 2011, WSDM '11.

[4]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Threshold Models of Collective Behavior , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  David Lazer,et al.  Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Winter A. Mason,et al.  Collaborative learning in networks , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Dylan Walker,et al.  Creating Social Contagion Through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks , 2010, ICIS.

[8]  Dylan Walker,et al.  Tie Strength, Embeddedness, and Social Influence: A Large-Scale Networked Experiment , 2014, Manag. Sci..

[9]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Social dynamics of Digg , 2010, EPJ Data Science.

[10]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[11]  L. Guest.  The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. , 1946 .

[12]  Abhijin Adiga,et al.  Sensitivity of Diffusion Dynamics to Network Uncertainty , 2013, AAAI.

[13]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Information diffusion and external influence in networks , 2012, KDD.

[14]  Ming Yin,et al.  The Communication Network Within the Crowd , 2016, WWW.

[15]  A. Banerjee,et al.  A Simple Model of Herd Behavior , 1992 .

[16]  Valerie L. Bartelt,et al.  Ethnic diversity deflates price bubbles , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Gerardo Iñiguez,et al.  Complex contagion process in spreading of online innovation , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[18]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Incorporating Contact Network Structure in Cluster Randomized Trials , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[19]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Infectious Disease Modeling of Social Contagion in Networks , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[20]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  The Structural Virality of Online Diffusion , 2015, Manag. Sci..

[22]  N. Christakis,et al.  Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[23]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[24]  Damon Centola,et al.  The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2010, Science.

[25]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Who says what to whom on twitter , 2011, WWW.

[26]  Kostas Tsioutsiouliklis,et al.  \Googlearchy": How a Few Heavily-Linked Sites Dominate Politics on the Web , 2003 .

[27]  Sanmay Das,et al.  Actions are louder than words in social media , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM).

[28]  F. Bass.  A new product growth model for consumer durables , 1976 .

[29]  Elihu Katz,et al.  The two-step flow of communication. , 1960 .

[30]  Sinan Aral,et al.  Identifying Influential and Susceptible Members of Social Networks , 2012, Science.

[31]  Elliot Anshelevich,et al.  Seeding influential nodes in non-submodular models of information diffusion , 2013, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[32]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[33]  M. Keeling,et al.  Modeling Infectious Diseases in Humans and Animals , 2007 .

[34]  Jukka-Pekka Onnela,et al.  Spontaneous emergence of social influence in online systems , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Esteban Moro,et al.  Impact of human activity patterns on the dynamics of information diffusion. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[36]  Stefan Stremersch,et al.  Social Contagion and Income Heterogeneity in New Product Diffusion: A Meta-Analytic Test , 2004 .

[37]  W. Bennett,et al.  A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication , 2008 .

[38]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Tracing information flow on a global scale using Internet chain-letter data , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  The Anatomy of Large Facebook Cascades , 2013, ICWSM.

[40]  Gerardo Iñiguez,et al.  Local cascades induced global contagion: How heterogeneous thresholds, exogenous effects, and unconcerned behaviour govern online adoption spreading , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[41]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies , 2010, Sociological methods & research.

[42]  D. Watts,et al.  A generalized model of social and biological contagion. , 2005, Journal of theoretical biology.

[43]  D. Watts,et al.  Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation , 2007 .

[44]  D. Andrews.  Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural Change with Unknown Change Point , 1993 .

[45]  Sara B. Soderstrom,et al.  Timing matters: How social influence affects adoption pre- and post-product release , 2016 .

[46]  A. Vespignani,et al.  Competition among memes in a world with limited attention , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[47]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Characterising two-pathogen competition in spatially structured environments , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[48]  Zhongyuan Ruan,et al.  Kinetics of Social Contagion , 2015, Physical review letters.

[49]  A Vespignani,et al.  Topical interests and the mitigation of search engine bias , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  Eytan Bakshy,et al.  Selection effects in online sharing: consequences for peer adoption , 2013, EC '13.

[51]  P. Kaye.  Infectious diseases of humans: Dynamics and control , 1993 .