Influence isn’t all-or-nothing

by Mathew on January 28, 2008 · 15 comments

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 that there are “influencers” who can make products or services succeed or fail simply by adopting or recommending them. But I think that many of those who are writing about this are missing the point.

Guy Kawasaki, for example, says that Watts’ argument means the “A-list” is dead, and that companies don’t have to pitch certain bloggers or journalists or experts any more, or go to trade shows or whatever. But Watts isn’t saying that media — blogs, newspapers, magazines, etc. — don’t matter any more. He’s saying that there aren’t specific individuals who can recommend products and have a disproportionate impact on the prospective market. There’s a big difference.

It doesn’t mean that bloggers and media aren’t important. In fact, they might just be more important, because if Watts is right then companies have to get the word out about their products to as many people as possible, simply because there’s no way of telling who the person is that might become the accidental Patient Zero of a viral marketing bonanza. If you believe Gladwell, then you only have to target certain people in certain markets, but Watts is saying it could be anyone.

I actually don’t think there’s as much of a clash between what Gladwell is arguing and what Watts says is the case. Anyone might be able to play the role of an influencer if the market happens to be ready for whatever the product or service or new development is (which is the whole meaning of the term “tipping point”) but there are likely to be certain people who are more connected to those kinds of things than others, which increases the likelihood that they will be the ones to start the trend.

Tagged as: , ,

  • http://www.venturebeat.com Eric Eldon

    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. :)

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    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 :-)

  • http://broadcasting-brain.com Mark Dykeman

    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.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    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.

  • Pingback: Tipping Points, Personality Styles, and Email: A-List or Spam? « SmoothSpan Blog

  • http://www.blogworldexpo.com Rick Calvert

    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).

  • http://www.influencer50.com Scott Pearson

    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/

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    That's a good point, Rick.

  • Pingback: Potential Game Changer for Word-of-Mouth/ Social/ Viral Marketing: Duncan Watts Debunks Influentials & Tipping Point | Gauravonomics Blog

  • Pingback: Links to posts about the Duncan Watts article in Fast Company | Broadcasting Brain

  • Shyam Kumar

    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…

  • Pingback: So Who Will Spread The Word That There Aren’t Influentials? | Web Kita -Belajar web

  • Pingback: El Mike’s Internet News Blog » Blog Archive » So Who Will Spread The Word That There Aren’t Influentials?

  • http://www.risenmagazine.com/feature/molly-jenson-oh-my-gosh-its-me Molly Jenson

    There's nothing wrong with Ladonna's adopting another child. It's good that she's helping a homeless child to have a family. That child will be loved. Why don't they give her a chance?

  • http://www.risenmagazine.com/feature/molly-jenson-oh-my-gosh-its-me Molly Jenson

    There's nothing wrong with Madonna's adopting another child. It's good that she's helping a homeless child to have a family. That child will be loved. Why don't they give her a chance?

Older post:

Newer post: