Malcolm Gladwell became an even better known author after his book "Blink" soared on the business book best seller's chart. Following up with "The Tipping Point", Gladwell seemed to hit pay dirt.
In the latter work, there really isn't any big revelation, but he certainly makes strong, compelling reasons why it only takes a small 'thing' to finally tip something (an idea, fad, product, etc) into popularity. In some cases, this may be due to a circle of influential people who are always willing to spread (dare I say, be 'viral') the word about a new idea, service, product, experience - you name it. However, it is also true that these circles cross all social lines. Yes, there will always be the one's out there who are information junkies and feel the need to pelt their social networks with their formulated opinions. And, in a lot of cases, this activity indeed tips the scales. But, the same holds true with circles and circles of people at all kind of levels. In other words, no exclusivity.
Recently, Duncan Watts - professor of sociology at Columbia University - threw in his two cents worth about the role of influencers as they relate to that unique 'tipping point'. In an article published by Fast Company, Watts challenges the Gladwell assessment. It's an interesting read that makes a few good points, but not one that persuades this marketing mind.
Consider how buying decisions are made and what influences the purchasing process. Wherever you fit within our social spectrum, it is highly likely that somebody, somewhere, some how influenced your decision. Were these people only the 'wealthy'? Doubtful. Only the 'jetsetters'? Probably not.
Decisions are influenced by the opinions we receive from those we trust - whether a friend, colleague, neighbor, a business - whatever. That's how it works. So, a respectful 'tip of the hat' to both Gladwell and Watts who both make good points (although our loyalty resides with Gladwell).
Trackback URL: