Thursday, October 8, 2009

A review of Gladwell's The Tipping Point

What do syphilis in Baltimore, Sesame Street, Hush Puppies shoes, and crime reduction in New York City all have in common? They are all epidemics. They started with a small group of people, reached some ethereal level and exploded across a community, be it local, national, or worldwide. They are also prominently featured in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point. In The Tipping Point, Gladwell attempts to trace the elements involved in the spread of such epidemics–be they diseases, fashion statements, or messages such as Paul Revere's famous cry of impending battle. Gladwell wastes not time in defining the problem with three variables:

1) The people among whom the epidemic spreads, or "The Law of the Few"

2) The content of the epidemic (contagious disease, commercial message, etc.), or "The Stickiness Factor"

3) Environmental factors influencing the epidemic's spread, or "The Power of Context"

With these laws, Gladwell presents a framework in which all epidemics–both biological and social–can be analyzed and controlled.

Central to the book is the idea of a tipping point: A contagion may exist at some basal level within a population, infecting roughly the same number of people that overcome it in any given time period. Some stimulus can cause an imbalance in this equilibrium, though, and the contagion will start to reach more new people than it leaves behind. This is the tipping point, and an epidemic follows. Without that push to disrupt the equilibrium, it may never reach that critical mass, that threshold it needs to cross in order to infect the whole population. With his “Law of the Few,” Gladwell explores three special types of people that can help an idea become an epidemic: his “Connectors,” “Mavens” and “Salespeople.” These are the people who can tip that contagion over the edge into boundless effect.

Gladwell’s Connectors spread contagions simply by contacting lots of people. Let’s say I, a normal person, spread this contagion (how about the newest pop hit, “Bulletproof” by La Roux) to one person today. A Connector will get ten people to listen to it: he knows more people than I do, he is in contact with them more, and his contact is meaningful.

Gladwell’s Mavens spread contagions by fostering the most contagious strains. They would not spread “Bulletproof.” They would research the topic and pick a better song, one with a better beat, more artistic merit, and the best societal implications.

What if you don’t like pop? Especially dance pop from the UK? Gladwell’s Salespeople will convince you that you do. In this way, these three types of people infect more than their fair share; they diffuse ideas farther than normal people. Whether from sheer numbers as with the Connectors, from careful selection as with the Mavens, or with efficacy of transmission as with the Salespeople, these special individuals have the ability to tip things into epidemics.

I disagree that these three types of people would be the only ones who would have the power to transform a contagion into an epidemic–what about someone who harbors a contagion for a long time–a 'Collector?' These people would be able to upset the equilibrium by transmitting the contagion for a long time–they will be singing “Bulletproof” for weeks rather than just the day or two after they hear it. Additionally, it is short-sighted to say that certain types of people are necessary for an epidemic to transpire. Some exceptional contagions can spread on their own, like H1N1 and results of the presidential race in the USA.

The Internet has also caused Gladwell’s heroes, especially the Connectors, to lose some of their power. Social networking sites allow all of us to be Connectors. I can message hundreds of people with the click of a mouse on Facebook, and link them to “Bulletproof” on Youtube. This glut of information devalues the communications of the Connectors. Mavens lose their uniqueness when faced with thousands of their peers reviewing the same items on Amazon. Salespeople are perhaps immune, as good salesmanship requires face-to-face contact.

Gladwell acknowledges the media as an alternative vehicle to the “Few” for reaching many people at once. Indeed, as he addresses his second criteria, “The Stickiness Factor,” he talks about children's television as a vehicle for learning epidemics, both messages disseminated entirely by the media. Gladwell here focuses not on the population through which the epidemic spreads, or the Few who tip it; he looks at the contents of the contagion. The Few can’t do anything with an impotent virus or a worthless idea. It must be "sticky" enough to be absorbed before it can be passed on.

Gladwell highlights Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues as examples of intentionally increasing the 'stickiness' of a message, in this case increasing the stickiness of learning for children. The creators of Sesame Street studied children and what was sticky with them. They then tailored their show to meet those criteria. The sticky factor came not just from the information, but also the way it was presented, catering to children’s short attention spans. Blue’s Clues took the information and success of Sesame Street to another level by further developing the stickiness of the information, repeating it five times every week. This is a very interesting concept, that presentation can change the stickiness of a message without altering the content.

In the third section of the book, "The Power of Context", Gladwell states the very obvious point that circumstances matter. People and ideas do not exist in vacuums. There is more than just stickiness and personality type at play. Humans also have complex subconscious psychological processes that pick up on subtle environmental cues we may not even be aware of. Gladwell almost undermines some of his earlier conclusions by emphasizing the importance of context. More, though, it serves as another variable that must be taken into account. If the song “Bulletproof” is used as a theoretical example in a class project, the context informs the reader that it is not meant as a serious suggestion. The would-be epidemic tipper needs to consider the context that the message will be transmitted in.

Gladwell devotes considerable space toward discussing nuanced studies of various epidemics, and how his three laws played into them. One example I found particularly interesting told of suicide in the nation of Micronesia: Unheard of before a teenager took his life in the 1960s over a minor disagreement with his parents, a suicide epidemic soon swept the nation. The power of context played a powerful role here: that first suicide gave permission for the rest. One thing this example lacked, though, was any tie-in to the Few. No Connectors advertised suicide to their many acquaintances, no Mavens told the best methods, and no Salesmen advocated their friends try it.

This is indicative of the book as a whole: Gladwell presents a wealth of provocative ideas, a wealth of interesting examples, and a wealth of succinct conclusions. His writing is expertly woven and watertight. His book is chock full of marvelous anecdotes; however, nowhere does he give an example that effectively demonstrates the importance of his three laws in causing epidemics to tip.

1 comment:

  1. I've got two specific suggestions for this.

    1. Please distinguish between epidemics of the health variety, e.g., black plague, and epidemics of the social idea variety - for example, Hush Puppies or Sesame Street. I don't believe Gladwell says anything at all about the first. He simply uses the notion with which we are already familiar as a metaphor to discuss the second variety.

    2. Much of the spread of the social variety is attributable to effective communication. Drucker has interesting things to say about communication, in particular in Chapter 18. I encourage you to read that and try to bring it into your revised version of this review. Some subsidiary questions on that: Do Drucker and Gladwell agree or are the at odds with each other? Drucker is very strong on listening and the power of the listener. Is that in Gladwell or not?

    A third thing I'd encourage you to do is to write a bit about timing. Presumably, once and idea has reached its tipping point there is no way to stop it from spreading thereafter. But before that, it can be contained. Where do "The Few" do their work in this timeline? and likewise for stickiness and context?

    Then on your last paragraph, if you want to maintain that as a conclusion, ask whether this is a matter of the writing or if it is the examples themselves that are truly deficient. If the former, all 3 factors might actually be present in his examples, but he chooses to focus on only one of them at a time for the purpose of illustration. (Gawande takes this sort of approach in Better.) You do try to do this with the suicide example, but you didn't push it enough to my satisfaction. How did the other teens become aware of the first suicide? Is there any information provided for why some were copycats? You need to talk about that a bit.

    ReplyDelete