How did you discover that new web game or hilarious video? Between social bookmarking, social networking, socializing, the internet has made sharing information and ideas as simple as pointing and clicking. So do we need anointed trend setters anymore? Two conflicting theories are hashing out the marketing debate, but both forget to give credit to the real influencer - the internet. The internet has flattened the playing field for anybody to contribute to starting or spreading a trend.

Marketing conventional wisdom has followed the teachings of books like The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell and The Influentials by Jon Berry and Ed Keller. These books claim a few well connected individuals inspire the vast majority in terms of the clothing we wear or movies we watch. These people are often called influentials. Marketing companies promote their connection with these influencers and often focus advertising budgets strictly to reaching this oligarchy of culture.

New research is challenging this conventional wisdom. Clive Thompson writes for Fast Company about Duncan Watts research on social trends.

[Duncan Watts] has analyzed email patterns and found that highly connected people are not, in fact, crucial social hubs. He has written computer models of rumor spreading and found that your average slob is just as likely as a well-connected person to start a huge new trend. And last year, Watts demonstrated that even the breakout success of a hot new pop band might be nearly random. Any attempt to engineer success through Influentials, he argues, is almost certainly doomed to failure.

“It just doesn’t work,” Watts says. “A rare bunch of cool people just don’t have that power. And when you test the way marketers say the world works, it falls apart. There’s no there there.”

Watts theorizes trends are more random, or at least harder to track. All the research done on trends has looked at successful trends. Trends that failed to catch on are harder to study. Watts computer simulations give more credit broader social networks, meaning marketing to a larger group is more important than a select group. Simply, if more people know about your product or idea, the odds are more likely someone will share that information.

Both theories seem to look simply at people as connectors rather than the medium they connect with. I expect The Tipping Point approach to marketing was more effective before the internet. In the days of telephones and snail mail, people were confined to their general circle of friends. Looking a little farther back, in the days before cable, three or four television had an authoritative position on what was and wasn’t cool, from both a programing and marketing perspective because the focused viewership. 70 percent of households watched “I Love Lucy” whereas today’s top rated show, American Idol, earns under 30 percent.

The internet has not only fragmented audiences, limiting the power of one marketing voice, but it has increased the power of the individual to promote what they care about.

In the real world, I have to talk to people I know to spread trends. But online, I can have more casual friends with no knowledge of each other except some shared interests. I have several hundred friends on Facebook, MySpace, and Gather, some dozen on Digg and Mixx, and obviously readers of this blog, all of who I can spread ideas to faster, cheaper, and easier than in person. A geek like me who doesn’t have a huge in-person network can have a massive online network.

The best part is these networks are often built around the sharing of just that information. Digg, Mixx, and social bookmarking sites have the sole purpose of spreading information virally. You submit something you like and other people see it, share it, and you have so much popularity, websites often crash because of too much traffic. These sites are also social networking sites. You can add users as friends to track websites they share.

These sites are so simple and efficient, a social movement can be started, popularized, and effective within minutes. Last year, Digg removed bookmarks showing the code used to crack HD DVDs. Within minutes, backlash ensued from Digg users feeling they were being censored. The result was a instantly formed movement to fill the entire front page of Digg with that HD DVD code, and they succeeded that same day.

Social networking sites focus more on keeping people connected than about what websites they like (though most sites provide that service). It’s like a checklist of all the people you know and a way to be updated about their birthday’s, job changes, interests, and other events. You can even find out who your friends are friends with, creating a huge network with tons of information a click away.

Facebook recognized the social possibilities when it launched misguided Beacon. Beacon attempted to monetize the word of mouth Facebook users already employed. The service failed due to privacy issues; the theory has vast potential in finding a way to encourage more word of mouth on the site.

Marketers who focus on the power of a small group of perceived trend setters are limiting their audience and the chances of spawning a viral explosion. With the internet and all its social applications, a person can be a powerful influencer in a small sector, like Digg or Facebook and not be a recognized influencer in the real world. Further, the internet makes it so easier for anyone to contribute that anyone can take part in the trend setting agenda, either by offering new ideas or finding a friendly environment where they can be heard.

As social networking evolves, we will hopefully see marketers taking advantage of these helpful mediums to share their ideas, not violating-privacy forcing it down our throats like Beacon way, but by using the tools at their disposal. Find ways to make information valuable and beneficial and people will not only pay attention, but they will seek it out and share it with others. That’s the power of the network.