Comments on: Gladwell vs. Watts: Past the Tipping Point

By: Devil in the Details » Trust in Peers Trumps the A-List

Devil in the Details » Trust in Peers Trumps the A-List — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:35:38 +0000

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

By: Glennette Clark

Glennette Clark — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 06:57:30 +0000

“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.

By: Marshall Kirkpatrick

Marshall Kirkpatrick — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:07:11 +0000

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.

By: andy brown

andy brown — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:59:28 +0000

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.

By: Karl Tiedemann

Karl Tiedemann — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:38:20 +0000

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.

By: Double Dipping - The Case for Two Viral Marketing Strategies [guest post] | Scott Clark - Finding the Sweet Spot

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:58:47 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Rick Julian

Rick Julian — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:11:06 +0000

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.