Influencers, Tipping Points and Trends, Oh My
January 28th, 2008
This month’s Fast Company rekindled the previous debate between Duncan Watts and those in the “Influencer” camp.
Watts is a “network-theory scientist who recently took a sabbatical from Columbia University and is now working for Yahoo,” and here is the break-down of the argument:
Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point theorizes that there are “mavens” out there that are the first ones to grab onto new trends. These influencers are both rare and powerful and, as the well-respected Ed Keller camp believes, these are the one out of ten folks who tell the other nine where to shop, what to buy, etc., etc.
Duncan Watts’ camp, as I understand it, believes that trends will happen when they are ready to happen - and that anyone can be an “influencer”… even your average, unconnected slob.
There’s data and charts and impressive books and presentations to back up both camps.
My two cents? They’re both right.
In our experience, which is not driven by charts, data or the like - but by hands-on experience, success is to look for those that have the potential to become influencers and empower them. It hasn’t been the coolest of the cool or those that are already giants in an industry. They are everyday people, but they aren’t the unconnected slobs, either. But we have seen these “everyday” people become influencers. They have risen in the communities they serve and also have, in turn, raised others in the community as well. So now they are influencers making influencers. And so it spreads.
Watts, Keller and Gladwell are all great thinkers. And they have definitely influenced the way we do things around here as we continue to build sustainable movements into the very core of brand identities. The only thing we have had to go on, though, is hands-on, front-lines experience and our gut – both of which have served us well.
I think it’s both great for the WOMM industry and healthy for all of us that there isn’t only one camp to pull from. So as the debate rages on and both sides generate more data to support their views, I have no doubt that we’ll all benefit from their thinking. Or at least it’ll be some more reading that makes my head hurt.
Other posts by Spike.
Evan says:
I agree with you that both sides are probably correct.
I think “The Change Function” by Pip Coburn provides some more insights here too.
Michael Maslanka, a commenter on Amazon.com (and influencer!), summed it up better than I could with, “The status quo bias will prevail until a crisis driven client needs the service you are selling and the pain of adoption is lowered to the point where the bias does not block the change.”
I think you can safely replace Change Function with Trend Function as well.
Identifying the keys variables for the “Crisis” (C) and the “Total Perceived Pain of Adoption” (TPPA) would be integral in finding those with the potential to become influencers. The influencers are perhaps those with different, more malleable biases or people whose personal constraints (see above C versus TPPA) make them more apt to promote a trend or product.
By the way, E=mc^2 and f=ma.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:31 amSpike says:
Speaking of making my head hurt…
January 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pmIs the Tipping Point Dead? « ryan moede :: social media says:
[...] Spike at Brains on Fire sees a harmony that can exist between the two models: …success is to look for those that have [...]
January 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pmThe Tipping Point Is Toast, But Watts Didn’t Burn It | Social Media Explorer says:
[...] Influencers, Tipping Points And Trends, Oh My! [...]
January 30th, 2008 at 4:01 amolivier blanchard says:
Yep. Some people have the potential to influence two or five or ten people (like me and you - outside of the blogs and articles and whatnot) while other people might be able to influence thousands or more (celebrities, etc.). It’s all about degrees of influence and interconnectivity.
Sounds like we’re still looking at A-list versus the long tail as an A/B tiered model for influencers and mavens.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:01 amJake McKee says:
This feels like a largely pointless “debate”. It’s morphed from a discussion of trends into one about the usefulness or realism of the concept of “influencers”.
No, just because the tipping point isn’t exactly what we might orginally have envisioned it, doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in various groups who hold some sway over others in that group. This principle is a fundamental block of the fields of sociology and psychology.
Next discussion..
February 1st, 2008 at 10:21 pm