"Social-media reach is power-law-distributed. The average post is meaningless; the top 0.1% of posts is most of the engagement. Citizens who reason about 'average reach' are reasoning about a number that does not describe anything real."
The Mechanism: Preferential Attachment
Posts that get early engagement (likes, shares, comments) get more algorithmic amplification, which gets them more engagement, which gets them more amplification. This positive-feedback loop is called preferential attachment: the more attention a piece of content already has, the more attention it tends to attract. The mathematical result is a power-law distribution of reach: a few posts get massive amplification, most posts get almost none.
This is structurally identical to the wealth distribution (rich-get-richer) and city populations (big-get-bigger). The same dynamic produces the same shape. Calling it 'going viral' makes it sound like a random event; it is in fact the predictable steady-state of a preferential-attachment system.
Why 'Average Reach' Misleads
For a creator with 100 posts, the median reach might be 200 viewers. The mean reach, dragged up by one or two posts that 'went viral,' might be 50,000. Quoting the mean as 'typical reach' is misleading by orders of magnitude. The skill is to ignore the mean and look at the median and the top-percentile distribution. The top 1% of posts often account for more total reach than the bottom 99% combined.
The Citizen Mistake
The mistake is to look at a sample of one's own posts, compute the mean reach, and use it to set expectations for the next post. The next post will almost certainly underperform the mean (because most posts are below the mean in a power-law distribution; only a few rare hits are above it). The expectation calibrated to the mean is therefore systematically disappointed, while the rare viral hit is treated as a surprise — when it is in fact the structural source of the mean itself.