Flywheels aren't a new concept. I first encountered them in Brad Stone's excellent book about Amazon, The Everything Store, which I believe was published in 2014. Stone explained how Bezos and crew discovered their flywheel in 2001:
> Bezos and his lieutenants sketched their own virtuous cycle, which they believe powered their business. It went something like this: Lower prices led to more customer visits. More customers increased the volume of sales and attracted more commission-paying third party sellers to the site. That allowed Amazon to get more out of fixed costs like the fulfillment centers and the servers they needed to run the website. This greater efficiency then enabled it to lower prices further. Feed any part of this flywheel… and it should accelerate the loop. Amazon executives were elated… after five years, they finally understood their business."
Like I said in the first sentence, I wasn't criticizing the content, neither I'm saying flywheel is a new concept.
Some call it flywheels, others call it engines, others call it funnel.
David Ogilvy didn't name it in 1963, with the Confessions of an Advertising Man, but the concept was there:
>Why did I write it? First, to attract new clients to my advertising agency. Second, to condition the market for a public offering of our shares. Third, to make myself better known in the business world. It achieved all three of these purposes.
My point is that some disciplines look into have closed concepts, marketing discipline doesn't.
Engines might be an appropriate analogy to flywheels, but a funnel is a different thing entirely, as is your quote from David Ogilvy.
A funnel typically represents the customers' journey, with some amount of dropoff at each step along the way, e.g. discover the site --> sign up --> become active --> convert to paid. And although each step of a funnel leads to the next one, the last step of the funnel doesn't loop back around to feed into the first step, which means the funnel isn't a closed loop that feeds into itself.
A flywheel, on the other hand, is always a closed loop. And most commonly the steps on the flywheel are business strategies, advantages, and activities, rather than steps along a user journey, e.g. provide a wider selection of goods from sellers --> make buyers happier --> get more buyers --> attract more sellers --> repeat.
Just Google Image search a picture of a flywheel and a funnel and the difference should become immediately clear to you. And note that you can combine the two concepts. For example, in the flywheel, the arrow between attracting more sellers and getting a wider selection of goods could be represented as a funnel.
Finally, your David Ogilvy quote is neither a funnel nor a flywheel. It's just a list of three distinct benefits, all of which derive from him writing something, but none of which feed into the others (or at least he doesn't describe how they do.)
Economies of scale is a distinct concept that's different than a flywheel. Yes, EoS plays an intimate role in powering a lot of flywheels. For example, the section of Amazon's flywheel that allows them to offer lower prices as a result of having more sellers works via EoS. However, it wouldn't make any sense to try to describe the entire flywheel concept using the term EoS, because lots of information would be lost, specifically the entire concept of a flywheel: that it feeds back into itself in a loop. Calling a flywheel EoS would be akin to calling a racetrack a curve.
As for whether or not "flywheel" is the best term, I think it's pretty good. Yes, real-life flywheels lose momentum due to friction, unless outside force is exerted. But the same is true with marketing flywheels, which is why all of them will have at least one step that requires the injection of outside energy, e.g. bringing in new customers.
Same as EoS, network effects can be a component of a flywheel, but aren't necessarily equivalent to the entire flywheel itself. Network effects simply mean that the value of the service increases the more people who use it, whereas a flywheel represents the entire positive feedback loop that may be driven by individual components like network effects, EoS, etc.
Marketers know very well what network effects and economies of scale are, and the concept of a flywheel is distinct from either. You can have a flywheel without EoS or network effects, and you can have EoS or network effects without having a flywheel.
Also, it's somewhat pointless to debate what the "original" meaning of flywheel is. Language evolves and changes, and people from one field borrow terminology from others when creating helpful analogies. Terms like "funnel" and "flywheel" are hardly the first to receive such treatment, and they won't be the last.
> Bezos and his lieutenants sketched their own virtuous cycle, which they believe powered their business. It went something like this: Lower prices led to more customer visits. More customers increased the volume of sales and attracted more commission-paying third party sellers to the site. That allowed Amazon to get more out of fixed costs like the fulfillment centers and the servers they needed to run the website. This greater efficiency then enabled it to lower prices further. Feed any part of this flywheel… and it should accelerate the loop. Amazon executives were elated… after five years, they finally understood their business."