Virginia Postrel writes about Buzz, conversations about preference within social networks, pointing to a study The Influence of Social Networks on the Effectiveness of Promotional Strategies and the work of Yale's Dina Mayzlin and Harvard's David Godes. The research tracked memes in Usenet discussion groups during 1999-2000 and how they effected TV ratings with some interesting conclusions: Jeff Jarvis builds upon this to make the point that its not how large blogspace is, but: First, bloggers capture buzz...Second, bloggers are influencers talking to influencers...Finally, bloggers will create buzz. The paper, a great read on promotion and memetics, specifically explores linear network structures (lattices, paths or chains) and where to employ agents to promote a message. These granular network elements of a unidirectional paths, bidirectional paths and bidirectional circles are essential building blocks that are easier to analyze. Small world networks that follow a power-law distribution are not part of the study, but ironically mass advertising is contrasted as an investment option. When the promotion decision is binary between mass and buzz, mass out performs. But when both methods are employed, buzz yields greater influence. Mass diffusion provides context for a decision, buzz diffusion enables it. I say ironic because the more connected nodes, especially in blogspace, are more like mass than buzz. Its interesting that within the granular paths a meme can take who you influence matters, and it shouldn't suprise people that information travels faster within these strong ties. Hubs are obvious targets for diffusion, Sarnoff's law prevails, but the weak ties the message passes can at best provide context for influence. A strategy of influence would then address both the peak and the skinny tail of the power-law distribution. UPDATE: Kevin Buzzes about Nokia's buzz project