The Harlem Shake Story - aka. Birth of a Meme

If you still have not heard of the Harlem Shake you must be living in a cave. Much has been written about the rapid and global spread of this catchy internet meme, yet little is understood about how it spread. A series of remixed videos along with a number of key communities around the world triggered a rapid escalation, giving the meme widespread global visibility. Who were the initial communities behind this mega-trend? SocialFlow took a look at 1.9 million tweets during a two-week period that included the words ’harlem shake’, or some versions of it.

The Harlem Shake itself is a dance style born in New York City more than 30 years ago. During halftime at street ball games held in Rucker Park, a skinny man known in the neighborhood as Al. B. would entertain the crowd with his own brand of moves, a dance that around Harlem became known as 'The Al. B. Though it started in 1981, the Harlem Shake became mainstream in 2001 when G. Dep featured the dance in his music video "Let's GetIt". While mining Twitter data, references to Harlem Shake (the original dance) were seen quite often prior to it becoming a popular meme. When someone tweets, "I just passed my final exams! *harlem shakes*," it's the equivalent of saying "I just passed my final exams! Look at me dancing!" While Bauuer's now infamous track was released on Diplo's Mad Decent label back in August 2012 (posted to YouTube on August 23 2012), it only accrued minor visibility for the first few months. Then February hit, and something changed.

The timeline below highlights the very first days as the meme was taking off. In blue, we see references to the 1980's dance *harlem shakes*, while the green curve represents Tweets that use the phrase 'The Harlem Shake', many of them linking to one of the first three versions of the meme on YouTube.

On February 2, The Sunny Coast Skate (TSCS) group establish the form of the meme in a YouTube video they upload. On the 5, PHL_On_NAN posts a remix (v2), gaining 300,000 views within 24 hours, and prompting further parodies shortly after. On Feb. 7, YouTuber hiimrawn uploaded a version titled "Harlem Shake v3 (office edition)" featuring the staff of online video production company Maker Studios. The video becomes is a hit, amassing more than 7.4 million views over the following week, and inspiring a number of contributions from well-known Internet companies, including BuzzFeed, CollegeHumor, Vimeo and Facebook.

Social Flow looked at the social connections amongst users who were posting to the meme. This gave them the ability to identify the underlying communities engaging with the meme at a very early stage. In the graph above each node represents a user that was actively posting and referencing the Harlem Shake meme on Feb 7 or 8 to Twitter. Connections between users reflect follow/friendship relationships. The graph is organized using a force directed algorithm, and colored based on modularity, highlighting dominant clusters - regions in the graph which are much more interconnected. These clusters represent groups of users who tend to have some attribute in common. The purple region in the graph (left side) represents African American Twitter users who are referencing Harlem Shake in its original context. There's very little density there as it is not really a tight-knit community, but rather a segment of users who are culturally aligned, and are clearly much more interconnected amongst themselves than with other groups.

After a similar analysis on the following two days (Feb 9 and 10) different communities can be seen emerging, resulting in a much more tightly knit graph structure. While the same dense cluster of musicians and DJs (in turquoise) still exists, there are substantially more self-identified YouTubers both across the US and the UK. At the same time there's a significant gamer / machinima cluster that's also participating, as well as a growing Jamaican contingent, and quite a few dutch profiles (purple -- left). Additionally, we see various celebrity and media accounts who caught on to the meme -- @jimmyfallon, @mashable and @huffingtonpost. By capturing the two snapshots, we can also make sense of the evolution of the meme as it becomes more and more visible. At first, loosely connected communities separately humored by the videos. Within days, we see major media outlets jump on board, and a much more intertwined landscape. We see different regions in the world light up, and identify communities of important YouTube enthusiasts who effectively get this content to spread.

Memes have become a sort of distributed mass spectacle, a mechanism that both capture people's attention, and define what is "cool" or "trendy." We see more and more companies and brands try to associate themselves with certain memes, as a way to maintain a connection with their audience, gain the cool factor. Pepsi did this with the Harlem Shake and saw an incredibly positive response. 

As we get better at identifying these trends and trend-setting communities early on, the pressure to participate will rise. As social networks become globally-intertwined, we're witnessing a growing number of memes conquer the world at large. These moments are critical points in time, where there are significant levels of attention given towards a specific entity - be it a joke, funny video or a political topic. Piecing together data from social networks can help us identify critical points in time, as well as the underlying communities and trendsetters for the humor-based memes, or the agenda setters for politically-slanted ones. The only question is: what will be the next one, cashing in on it 15 minutes?

Hungry for more? Read the full article on HuffPost.

Connecting the Community

We all live in multiple on-line communities, but what do these communities look like? Where are we located in each of our communities, and what role do we play?

The diagram below shows an actual on-line community [OLC]. Every node in the network represents a person. A link between two nodes reveals a relationship or connection between two people in the community -- the social network. Most on-line communities consist of three social rings -- a densely connected core in the center, loosely connected fragments in the second ring, and an outer ring of disconnected nodes, commonly known as lurkers. Communities have various levels of belonging -- each represented by one of these rings. You may belong in the core of one community, while being a peripheral lurker in another.

In the above diagram, we see three distinct types of membership in our community -- designated by blue, green and red nodes. The proportion of nodes in each ring in this population is fairly typical of most on-line communities -- the isolates [lurkers] outnumber the highly-connected by a large ratio. The outer orbit in the network above contains the blue nodes. They have been attracted to the OLC, but have not connected yet. The blue nodes contain both brand new members, who have not connected yet, and passive members who have seen no reason to connect. The passive group is the most likely to leave the OLC, or remain as absorbers-only of the content in the community.

The green nodes have a few connections -- usually with prior acquaintances. They are not connected to the larger community -- only to a small, local group. They do not feel a sense of true membership in the larger whole, though they may identify with it. The small clusters of friendships amongst the greens can be maintained by other media and do not need this particular OLC to survive. They are also likely to leave or become passive and will likely do so in unison with the rest of their small circle of friends.

The inner core of the community is composed of red nodes [zoomed-in view below]. They are very involved in the community, and have formed a connected cluster of multiple overlapping ego networks. The leaders of the OLC are embedded in this core cluster. The core members will stay and build the community. Unfortunately they are in the minority. The core node consists of usually less than 10% of most on-line groups -- sometimes they are as few as 1% of the total OLC. Although small, they are a powerful force of attraction. It is the core that is committed and loyal to the OLC and will work on making it a success.

Online communities and social networks are often conceived and developed by businesses and organizations that focus on: "How can we use the online community to benefit us?" Focusing only on how to utilize the community, leads many organization to failure in building these communities! They fail at community development by not creating a strategy that makes sure their target audience is gaining a positive experience and practical benefits from participating in the community. It is amazing how many organizations try to build on-line social networks while ignoring the needs of the very people they are trying to attract and influence! It is then no surprise when large chunks of their target group leave when the "next big thing" comes around: SixDegrees-->Friendster-->Orkut-->MySpace-->Facebook-->Next? To build a vibrant and growing OLC, you need to support natural human behavior, not work against it. You need to think sociology, not just technology.

The field of social network analysis [SNA] gives us tools to both know the net and knit the net. SNA maps and measures the paths of information, ideas and influence in the community. SNA reveals the emergent patterns of interaction in organizations and communities and allows us to track their changes over time.Growing a community is not just adding new members. It requires adding both people and relationships -- nodes and links. Node counts are important in social networks, but it's the relationships -- and the patterns they create -- that are key! A community thrives by its connections, not by its collections! It's the relationships, and the prospect of future relationships, that keep members active and excited.

Source: http://orgnet.com/community.html

Social Media and the Power of Networks 2. – Key Opinion Leaders on Twitter

The increasing impact of social media gives modern marketing a lot to think about; Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Flickr, Pinterest, Google+ and hundreds of blogs are only the tip of the iceberg, and it seems impossible to be up-to-date on all the channels. To look at them one by one seems illogical, since the key aspect of the generated content lays in the network effect, that enables the vast exchange of information. What remains to be done? This three-part series introduces Maven7’s newest research focusing on the network effect, and therefore making life easier for online marketing, PR, and product management experts.

In contrast to the Facebook-boom that began 2-3 years ago, and reached it’s 3 million user population in Hungary last year, the Twitter community seems to be growing at a slower pace. The Twitter company was launched in 2006 in San Franscisco, and has around 30 thousand Hungarian visitors a day, similar to the blog hosting site Tumblr.

Why bother with them at all – you may ask? The majority of Twitter and Tumblr users come from an urban environment, most of them are high-status people living in Budapest. Microblogs spread information – especially negative ones – very fast. Here is a comparison: a „tradiotional” online medium might be busy with a story for a whole week, whereas on Twitter – given that the right person spreads it – the same information is distributed within 2.5 hours! Therefore it is of great importance, to keep these outlets under control as much as possible. It is not a coincidence, that Hollywood celebrities like Charlie Sheen (with his 7.5  million followers) get paid around 50thousand dollars per tweet. Our survey conducted during Spanish election season showed that even an average person can have substantial effect on voters. This leaves no second thoughts about monitoring the information that gets to these loyal, high presitge consumers.

National key opinion leaders (famous journalists, bloggers, athletes) are active on multiple scial media platforms, but the small number of follower bases point to the fact, that the person with the most followers is not neccesary the most influental one, when it comes to information distribution. We need to find out, which tweeter is the most relevant one, and has the power to form opinions when it comes to our products. We can achive this through Twitter data using the methods of data mining. The user’s position in the network is another key factor (i.e. how many followers does the user have in common with our competing brand). Compared to Twitter, Facebook has open activity data, which means that we can easily access information regarding the users network of contacts.

Social Media and the Power of Networks 2. – Key Opinion Leaders

There are multiple ways we can build networks from the connections of Twitter users. First of all we can regard the distributors (people related to the brand,  or the brand’s official page) as the source of information, and link individual users to them, based on who retweeted the source’s message. Furthermore, the users themselves have followers and friends online, the latter one representing a stronger status, that can be interpreted as a network itself (for more, check our previous article on a follower- andfriend-based network). The picture shows a network of retweeted messages related to an FMCG product distributor and its competitors.

Social Media and the Power of Networks 2. – Key Opinion Leaders on Twitter pic 2.

The second picture represents the choice between data sources, that have the most influence on our consumer basis. The yellow boxes are the key opinion leaders(KOLs), who can reach out to the major part of the community in only three steps. They hold a central position in the network, because they have the biggest follower- and friendbasis.

Through analysis of Twitter data we can not only locate the key opinion leaders and characters of a brand, but with the help of location information we can also interpret product placement related research. A good example of using location data is our previous article on the optimallocalization af ATMs. 

To be continued.

Can Social Media Become the Saviour of Democracy ?

An article in Nature claims to have proven the  direct impact of  social media on political activity. Researchers at the University of Carolina along with people from Facebook run a gigantic experiment.

On Nov. 2, 2010, the day of the nationwide Congressional elections, nearly every Facebook member who signed on — 61 million in all — received a nonpartisan “get out the vote” message at the top of the site’s news feed. It included a reminder that “today is Election Day”; a link to local polling places; an option to click an “I Voted” button, with a counter displaying the total number of Facebook users who had reported voting; and as many as six pictures of the member’s friends who had reported voting. The results: 340,000 additional votes nationwide! Pretty amazing, but how can we be sure these people would not have voted by themselves?

Two randomly chosen control groups, of 600,000 Facebook members each, did not receive the pictures. One group received just the “get out the vote” message; the other received no voting message at all.By examining public voter rolls, the researchers were able to compare actual turnout among the groups. They determined that the message showing friends who had voted was directly responsible for 60,000 more votes nationwide and indirectly responsible for 280,000 that were spurred by friends of friends — what they called “social contagion” effect.

Significantly if not surprisingly, the voting study showed that patterns of influence were much more likely to be demonstrated among close friends, suggesting that “strong ties” in cyberspace are more likely than “weak ties” to influence behavior. It also found an indirect impact from the messages: friends of friends were influenced as well.

Fun fact, they also discovered that about 4 percent of those who claimed they had voted were not telling the truth.Because only about 1 percent of Facebook users openly state their political orientation, the researchers said they could not determine whether political leanings had any influence on social networking and voting behavior.Past studies have shown that a variety of methods for mobilizing potential voters have a disappointing effect. Knocking on doors is the most effective technique; e-mail is one of the least.

The Paradox Of Friendship – Why do our friends have more friends than we do?

What may look like a psychological phenomenon, is actually basic maths.

In a colossal study of Facebook by Johan Ugander, Brian Karrer, Lars Backstrom and Cameron Marlow,  examined all of Facebook’s active users, which at the time included 721 million people — about 10 percent of the world’s population — with 69 billion friendships among them. They found that a user’s friend count was less than the average friend count of his or her friends, 93 percent of the time. Next, they measured averages across Facebook as a whole, and found that users had an average of 190 friends, while their friends averaged 635 friends of their own.

Studies of offline social networks show the same trend. It has nothing to do with personalities; it follows from basic arithmetic. For any network where some people have more friends than others, it’s a theorem that the average number of friends of friends is always greater than the average number of friends of individuals.

This phenomenon has been called thefriendship paradox. Its explanation hinges on a numerical pattern — a particular kind of “weighted average” — that comes up in many other situations. Understanding that pattern will help you feel better about some of life’s little annoyances.

In this hypothetical example, Ross, Chandler, Phoebe and Rachel are four friends. Lines signify reciprocal friendships between them; two people are connected if they’ve named each other as friends.

Ross’s only friend is Chandler, a social butterfly who is friends with everyone. Phoebe and Rachel are friends with each other and with Chandler. So Ross has 1 friend, Chandler has 3, Phoebe has 2 and Rachel has 2. That adds up to 8 friends in total, and since there are 4 girls, the average friend count is 2 friends per girl. This average, 2, represents the “average number of friends of individuals” in the statement of the friendship paradox. Remember, the paradox asserts that this number is smaller than the “average number of friends of friends” — but is it? Part of what makes this question so dizzying is its sing-song language. Repeatedly saying, writing, or thinking about “friends of friends” can easily provoke nausea. So to avoid that, I’ll define a friend’s “score” to be the number of friends she has. Then the question becomes: What’s the average score of all the friends in the network?

Imagine each person calling out the scores of his/her friends. Meanwhile an accountant waits nearby to compute the average of these scores.

Ross: “Chandler has a score of 3.”

Chandler: “Ross has a score of 1. Phoebe has 2. Rachel has 2.”

Phoebe: “Chandler has 3. Rachel has 2.”

Rachel: “Chandler has 3. Phoebe has 2.”

These scores add up to 3 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2, which equals 18. Since 8 scores were called out, the average score is 18 divided by 8, which equals 2.25.

Notice that 2.25 is greater than 2. The friends on average do have a higher score than the girls themselves. That’s what the friendship paradox said would happen.

The key point is why this happens. It’s because popular friends like Chandler contribute disproportionately to the average, since besides having a high score, they’re also named as friends more frequently. Watch how this plays out in the sum that became 18 above: Ross was mentioned once, since she has a score of 1 (there was only 1 friend to call her name) and therefore she contributes a total of 1 x 1 to the sum; Chandler was mentioned 3 times because she has a score of 3, so she contributes 3 x 3; Phoebe and Rachel were each mentioned twice and contribute 2 each time, thus adding 2 x 2 apiece to the sum. Hence the total score of the friends is (1 x 1) + (3 x 3) + (2 x 2) + (2 x 2), and the corresponding average score is

 Each individual’s score is multiplied by itself before being summed. In other words, the scores are squared before they’re added. That squaring operation gives extra weight to the largest numbers (like Chandler’s 3 in the example above) and thereby tilts the weighted average upward.

So that’s intuitively why friends have more friends, on average, than individuals do. The friends’ average — a weighted average boosted upward by the big squared terms — always beats the individuals’ average, which isn’t weighted in this way.

Like many of math’s beautiful ideas, the friendship paradox has led to exciting practical applications unforeseen by its discoverers. It recently inspired an early-warning system for detecting outbreaks of infectious diseases. In a study conducted at Harvard during the H1N1 flu pandemic of 2009, the network scientists Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler monitored the flu status of a large cohort of random undergraduates and found that people with more connections were infected faster.

For more analogies check out the whole article at a New York Times blog.