March 5, 2008

Gladwell vs. Watts: Past the Tipping Point

by Christine Huang in Us, Together, Creative Class, Global Community, Advertising & Branding

Last week, outspoken network-theory scientist Duncan Watts brought to life his argument against Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point at the offices of Fast Company. Watts, who’s currently working with Yahoo in lieu of his regular gig at Columbia, argues that the “influencers” whom Gladwell claims, in essence, make our world go ’round, are no more influential than ordinary, non-node individuals. Anthropologist (and PSFK Conference speaker) Grant McCracken was at the talk and offers some interesting commentary in response to the case presented by Watts, whose anti-tipping point theory was featured in Fast Company’s February issue. McCracken’s thoughts:

[Watts] argues that news travels as readily through ordinary people as influential ones. This means that our world is not “hub and spoke”… No, as Thompson put it, networks are democratic. We are just as likely to “get the news” from a friend as we are from a networking paragon.

Even in this narrow form, the Watts-Thompson argument has revolutionary implications for the world of marketing. If their argument is true, it feels like we are looking at a turning point, not a tipping one. Many marketers thought that Gladwell’s model gave them a way to “game” the diffusion effect. All we had to do was influence the influencers and entire markets will fall before our approach…

If marketing learned anything in the 20th century, it is that consumers are smarter than this, that there are no tricks in any case, that the world is not about process, it is stubbornly about content. If the marketer wants influence, the solution remains what it has always been. The answer is to build great products, brands and messages. It is these, and not “memes” or “viruses,” that capture attention and prompt choice.

CultureBy

7 Responses to “Gladwell vs. Watts: Past the Tipping Point”

Rick Julian
Posted from: 68.214.55.54
March 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pm

My guess is Gladwell’s influencers aren’t as influential as he suggests, but far more influential than Watts will acknowledge.

At the risk of falling into a paradox of the obvious, Gladwell’s influencer thesis just seems too damn true to be false. People are always taking cues from one another, and a small subset of people clearly appear to be tastemakers.

People who are highly social tend to influence others with their proclivities more than quiet types do. They’re more gregarious, more interactive, and tend to attract more attention, create more impressions, than their meeker brethren, leading to higher levels of awareness .. . more meme dispersion, more purchases.

This kind of Alpha Influencer is relatively rare, but frequently seen in the wild, and, unless I’ve completely missed Watt’s point, it’s hard to understand how he could deny the reality of the Tipping Point.

Confession: i didn’t RTFB.
Double Dipping - The Case for Two Viral Marketing Strategies [guest post] | Scott Clark - Finding the Sweet Spot
Posted from: 128.177.21.2
March 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

[…] therefore spend lots of money targeting those influencers. Duncan Watts has stimulated a lot of discussion and debate by publishing research[pdf] and arguing (well) that such starts with a random set of […]
Karl Tiedemann
Posted from: 65.91.60.200
March 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am

It’s great that someone is kicking the tires on Gladwell’s social theory, but it’s worth noting that Watts’ revelations are mostly based on his computer simulations of social interactions. So, I’d take that with a very large grain of salt.
andy brown
Posted from: 76.89.132.38
March 10th, 2008 at 10:59 pm

i think that the idea behind gladwells argument is that the hipper influencers can influence the people who follow that influencer. on the flip side you have people who recognize what is good for them as a product, for the products value. the people who make purchases from a personal platform will lead by example, and by word of mouth. these are ultimately what you “want behind your brand. many brands are driven by influencers, etc etc, but these are all short termed and naive. the consumer who consumes off of a grounded platform is really the people you want to learn from.

The answer is to build great products, brands and messages. It is these, and not “memes” or “viruses,” that capture attention and prompt choice”— well said.
Marshall Kirkpatrick
Posted from: 24.21.188.46
March 14th, 2008 at 4:07 am

Unfortunately McCracken’s blog is retarded and needs a WWW in the URL, or else you get a 404 like the link you posted delivers. Can’t stand it when that happens! It made me use the word “retarded”- which I never do.
Glennette Clark
Posted from: 96.231.122.75
March 16th, 2008 at 1:57 am

“The answer is to build great products, brands and messages. It is these, and not “memes” or “viruses,” that capture attention and prompt choice.”

It goes without saying that one must start with a great product, brand and message. But, to dismiss “memes,” “viruses” and “influencers” is outright ridiculous in a day and age where every other product is just a good as the next.

Influencers are those that we look to help us to navigate the market and make the best decision to fit our needs.
Devil in the Details » Trust in Peers Trumps the A-List
Posted from: 69.89.31.104
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 am

[…] meme got kicked around in the ’sphere a few weeks back when Duncan Watts released some research that contradicts Malcolm […]