Community Page
- www.mathewingram.com/work Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I look forward to seing the outcome at the end of this.
- The internet is shaping and evolving so fast, but people take a long time to change their ways.
- life is just so fragile, we shoud never take it for granted.
- It is very sad, I have a freind who is dying of cancer. She however can do nothing much except sleep at the moment.
- Hi Mathew, I'm glad you finally got an iPhone. I remember you mentioning you wanted one but had a Blackberry for work. I'm a big fan of the Panorama application... and Bejeweled 2.
Jump to original thread »
There’s lots of commentary today about my friend Clive Thompson’s piece in Fast Company magazine on researcher Duncan Watts, who argues that much of author Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point just isn’t true — that is, the idea th
... Continue reading »
1 year ago
1 year ago
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 :-)
1 year ago
(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.
1 year ago
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.
1 year ago
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).
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
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...