Media is responsible for the dissemination of information. It is responsible for spreading ideas. This is achieved through marketing and this is why I thought it would be a good idea to talk a little about Malcolm Gladwell’s, The Tipping Point.

It seems to me that I am a little late finding out about Malcolm Gladwell although, at this point, I have now read all three of his books and am currently on his fourth. Normally I’d feel left out, but in this case, my timing is rather amusing and actually, scarily ironic. Let me explain: in order for people to be familiar with his books, that is, for them to gain mass popularity, be put on the shelves of the Chapters and Indigo “Hot Selling” table at the front of the store and have critics all over the world give it the time and praise it deserves, it needed to surpass what Gladwell calls, The Tipping Point, the subject of his first book, and quite appropriately, the title of it too.

The Tipping Point refers to the moment when something goes from nothing to something. Something big. And in terms of marketing, for instance, we’re talking mainstream. Essentially, Gladwell discusses how trends start; how products, ideas, movements, or anything else capable of going viral, become popular and widespread. He makes several arguments to prove his theory using outside research as well as some of his own research as evidence, which is all very convincing. His theory is composed of a handful of requirements, which, when combined, form the criteria for a successful trend.

Gladwell claims that trends are made possible by a select group of special people, as he describes his first principle as the “the law of the few.” These “agents of change” come in three types. The first are the Connectors, those “with a special gift for bringing the world together” (basically, those who know everyone; those who are often friendly, sociable, good at making eye contact, and who always shake hands when meeting someone for the first time). The second are Mavens who are information specialists who share specialized information with the rest of us, while the third are Salesmen, those who persuade the public of certain ideas and that can negotiate and convince those around them.

Gladwell mentions how people like these helped Hushpuppies and Airwalks transform off the streets into mainstream culture. He notes that Airwalks, in particular, made the mistake of saturation: by putting their shoes in larger stores and making them more widely available to the public, people began to see them as “uncool” and after years of success, the company’s once niche product became a lost cause. No longer were people interested in shoes that anyone could get at any WalMart or Zellers. As I understand it, the age of customization came into effect and having generic skate shoes just wouldn’t cut it on the streets.

His second principle is “the stickiness factor,” how memorable something is. As one example, Gladwell examines how the researchers behind the hit television show, Sesame Street, were able to study children’s eye movement patterns in association with characters and events, proving some scenes more memorable than others and in a show aimed at educating children, this is a crucial factor to it’s success.

He counters this study with a newer television show, Blues Clues, and explains, among other reasons, that because it was much simpler, with less characters, more obvious, and that it ran one episode every week, several times a week on repeat, it was able to become much “stickier.” What can we take from this? Repetition counts for something.

Gladwell’s third and last principle is “the power of context,” in which he explains how human behavior is dependent on the environment. One example, which may be hard to believe (and has received some criticism), is how, in the early nineties, by cleaning up the New York subway system and ridding of it’s subway graffiti, New York was able to drastically drop it’s crime rate.  What makes the link between subway graffiti and overall crime so significant? Well, this is because, as Gladwell argues, less graffiti on the subway meant that people were less inclined to commit crimes all together. In other words, the graffiti on the subway was a signifier – a sign that let potential criminals know that they were able to get away with whatever crime they wanted (this should ring a bell for anyone who has studied Ferdinand de Saussure and any kind of linguistics). By cleaning the graffiti off the subway cars, that sign was taken away, and thus people did not think New York was as bad as it was, and therefore, potential criminals felt as though they were more likely to be caught. Moral of the story: one small change can lead to something big.

Filed under: Literature
6 Comments »

Back To Top