The idea that word of mouth can be organised into creation, exposure and evaluation is useful. It gives marketers something to investigate. What I resist is the tempting leap from a framework that explains participation to a recipe that guarantees a trend.
If the right combination of motivation, opportunity and ability always produced virality, every well-funded campaign would catch fire. We know from ordinary experience that attention is less obedient than that.
It reminds me of dating. The profile looks perfect, the interests line up, everything says “excellent match.” Then you meet and there are no butterflies. Campaigns can have all the apparent ingredients and still miss the emotional or cultural moment.
The Ice Bucket Challenge interested me because participation was so public and personal. A nomination came from someone you knew. You could join in, pass it on and become part of the story. I see that social dynamic as a useful part of the explanation, alongside the cause itself. It does not mean that visibility, fundraising and longer-term impact are interchangeable measures; they need separate evidence.
The same caution applies to a recurring sharing ritual such as an annual music recap. Familiarity can become a strength, but the audience is allowed to get bored. A successful format does not possess the future.
My practical conclusion is to prepare carefully and stay responsive. Make participation understandable, remove unnecessary friction, listen to how people reinterpret the idea and measure what actually happened. A framework can help us ask better questions. It cannot promise the spark.