In The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, the idea that there are certain people can be the central point of the “outbreak” (if you would call it that) of trends. These so-called “influentials” make it so that companies need not spend money on advertising to popularize their product(s), granted that these “influentials” use the product(s) as well. Basically, “Reach those rare, all-powerful folks, and you’ll reach everyone else through them” (FC).

However, not everyone takes what Gladwell writes to be entirely true, especially one Duncan Watts, a network-theory scientist, who has run several computer simulations testing the idea of “influentials”. Watts found, however, that in most cases, it was not highly-connected people who was at the center of a outburst, but rather, an “average Joe.” Even upon changing the number of connections making the expected “influential” 10 times more connected than before (thus making him 40x more connected than an “average Joe”). This increase still did result in the expected “influential” being (indeed) more influential than the “average Joe”. The answer lay not in the number of connections, but rather the strength of them. According to Watts: “If society is ready to embrace a trend, almost anyone can start one–and if it isn’t, then almost no one can.”

I thought this was an interesting article given “The Tipping Point” is a required reading, and also because it brings into play some of the ideas we’ve talked about in class. That is, that the weights on a link between nodes (be it positive, negative, strong, weak or anything inbetween) are just as important as the connections themselves. Of course, I am a little confused as to why someone with MANY links wouldn’t have very strong links as well. However, I suppose it could make sense that a very connected person would be too busy to take the time to influence ALL the people they’re connected with, thus making the links effectively weaker. An “average Joe” person may have relatively few links, but these could be seen as a few close friends, probably, who take to heart what this “Joe” says and are thus more easily influenced by the trend he has picked up on.

I did think it odd, however, that the article stated that “the problem with viral marketing is that the disease metaphor is misleading”. Basically that, “influentials” aren’t as Gladwell thought they’d be (according to Watts) being trends are not as like epidemics as we might think. I find that this rejection of the epidemic-comparison is not necessary as there are people who are more susceptible to catching a virus or bacteria more than others and vice-versa. As long as people are diverse in both their biological history and their ideological ones, there doesn’t need to be a rejection of the idea of trends as a disease.

FC: Fast Company.com Is the Tipping Point Toast?, by Clive Thompson

Another article about pretty much the same thing:

Tipped over: social influence “tipping point” theory debunked, by Julian Sanchez