DISQUS

Eric Eldon · 1 year ago

but you see, mathew, duncan watts gets so much more publicity by setting himself up as the anti-tipping-point dude. it's like he's calculated that there's an anti-tipping-point tipping point waiting to happen. :)

mathewi · 1 year ago

That's definitely true, Eldon -- and it's another example of how the
deliberately-contentious-argument approach wasn't invented by the
blogosphere, but has been around pretty much forever.

Maybe I should bide my time until i see the anti-anti-tipping-point tipping
point coming :-)

Mark Dykeman · 1 year ago

I'm still trying to absorb the article about Watts's research, plus the commentary across the Web, but I think some important points could get lost:

(1) Influencers do have an impact on spreadings trends, rumors, and ideas, but it was a mistake to think they were the only way to sell stuff.
(2) The point made about Madonna's rise to fame being random back in the 1980s ignores the fact that her rise was probably due as much (or even more) to music videos and her persona than her music. She strongly influenced the clothing, hair and make-up of teenage girls for a couple of years. In other words, the music experiment where different social groups picked different top songs seems to have been based on the merits of the music alone, which ignores the "star power" aspect of an influencer. In fact, Madonna is a better example of the success of an influencer.
3) I haven't seen a better explanation than Gladwell's for the massive increase in Hush Puppy sales in the mid-1990s. He may have read too much into it, but it doesn't mean he was completely wrong.

Having said that, I think Watt's "forest fire" analogy is excellent and an important addition to these theories.

mathewi · 1 year ago

I would agree with all of those points, Mark -- and I think that Watts
and Gladwell probably agree more than they disagree. Influencers do
exist, but they're not as hugely important as Gladwell makes them out
to be, and the environment does have to be ready in order for them (or
even an average influencer) to have an impact.

Rick Calvert · 1 year ago

Maybe someone has said it somewhere but I haven't seen it yet. The most important factor to a product or service success is that it is good. Once you have that then you need to get the word out so people know it's good.

Sure there are lots of crappy products that capitalize on some fad. Where someone with some influence uses it and says "hey this piece of crap is cool" and for whatever reason people buy into the hype. But those are the exceptions. Most crappy products with big budgets and sophisticated marketing strategies fail and for a good reason... They are crap.

To say that you don't absolutely have to have "an influencer" to break through with a product and be successful makes sense. But to suggest that influencers don't matter is silly.

Of course they matter. They just aren't the only thing that matters.

Not sure if I made any sense there or not 8).

mathewi · 1 year ago

That's a good point, Rick.

Scott Pearson · 1 year ago

Interesting perspective and comments - for a broader insight you might find Duncan Brown's new book - Influencer Marketing - Who really Influences your customers a good read - http://www.influencermarketingbook.com/

Shyam Kumar · 1 year ago

Good Summary.

My view: Anyone can be the 'Influential', it's a question of a plethora of not so random characteristics merging in a random manner.
In words that make more sense, dont market to the Top 10 or to the Top+Bottom 1000. Market to the Middle class which has potential to go both ways, and hence equal probability of becoming/reaching 'accidental influentials' and of mass marketing as well.

A very interesting topic no doubt and one that will be, and is being, twisted and turned to no end.

As they say, " If you speak a lie over and over again, one day you'll believe it's true." or something to that effect.
You can already see signs of 'Influentials', accidental or not, influencing misinterpreted and misguided posts.

Should be fun...