The only book in many years that I did not finish. It was bad. BAD I say. Sloppy pseudo-science. Slippery slope logic. UGH. I just could not swallow the load that this book was.

And I read a review that said this was originally only supposed to be a 5-7 pg article - THAT makes sense. It would probably be an interesting article - but as a book? Suck city.

Here's what this book taught me:
1. When something (an idea, a product, etc) passes an arbitrary 'tipping point', it becomes trendy.
2. Influential people have more influence in making something trendy.
3. If an idea is worth spreading, it is more likely to spread.
4. When analyzing human behavior, context matters.

Really good book. It read like a bestseller (quick read), but had a lot of substance to stop and make you think.

three Rules of the tipping point: the law of the few, the stickyness factor, the power of context.

Law of the Few (people who influence):
- Connectors: super connectors (eg Paul Revere). William Dawes had the same mission as Paul Revere the same night but we haven't heard of him b/c Paul Revere was a super-connector & knew who to rouse.
- Mavens: A Maven is a person who has information on a lot of different products or prices or places. This person likes to initiate discussions with consumers and respond to requests. They like to be helpers in the marketplace.
- Salesmen: people with the skills of persuasion. Good at reading people entering into "conversational harmony" with them. Facial gestures (nods, smiles, frowns) are key indicators. Emotional Mimicry. Studies showed Peter Jennings viewers voted Republican b/c he unconsciously smiled more while covering Reagan.

Stickyness Factor
- Sesame street succeeded b/c it learned to make TV sticky. It did a TON of testing with focus groups of kids to increase stickyness (how much kids remembered) of each show. They would cut scenes that didn't hold attention until each show
was good.
- Blues Clues did even more testing and discovered that kids love repetition - it plays the same show 5 times in a row and kids love it.
- make the message personal to make it memorable

The Power of Context
- Broken window theory. NYC cleaned up its crime epidemic by cleaning off the graffiti from its subways.
- Often to change human behavior you have to change the context the problem is presented in.
- Stanford Prison Experiment by Zimbardo proved that context matters.
- law of 150: a person can't 'know' more than 150 people, so companies usually start to fail at that point. Gore-Tex breaks up a company into 2 once it hits 150, because they've found things work better that way.

موضوع: نقطه اوج، چه طور مسائل جزئی موجب تغییرات بزرگ می شوند

خلاصه ای از محتویات: به طور کلی مالکوم گلدول، ژورنالیست مشهور نیویورکر در این کتاب علت وقوع اتفاقات اپیدمیک رو بررسی می کنه. اینکه تحت حضور چه شرایط و عواملی یک تبلیغ، یک شایعه، یا یک رویه در جامعه مد واپیدمیک می شه. از اطلاعاتی که در کتاب هست می شه در بحث های مارکتینگ و بازریابی، تبلیغات موثر استفاده کرد.

خلاصه ای از جالبات کتاب:
1. six degrees of separation: یکی از مطلب های جالبی که توی کتاب یاد گرفتم مفهوم شش درجه جدایی هست. به طول خلاصه طبق این تئوری، هر چیز یا شخصی که در دنیا وجود داشته باشه، با یک واسطه شش نفره از ذنجیره دوستان ما، و دوستان آن ها در دست رس ما خواهد بود.

2. Connectors: یکی از عوامل اپیدمیک شدن یک موضوع وجود افرادی با هویت رابط هست. این ها افرادی هستن با شبکه ای بزرگ از ارتباطات میان فردی. افرادی اجتماعی و خوش مشرب که معمولا مورد اعتماد و تحسین دوستانشون هستن.
یک مثال خیلی جالب در خصوص این افراد این بود که می گه یک لیست 40 نفری از دوستانتون تهیه کنید و مشخص کنید چه طور با هر یک از این دوستانتون آشنا شدین، در نهایت به یک عدد کوچک می رسید. به این معنی که یکی یا دو نفر از دوستانتون موجب آشنا شدن شما با ما بقی افراد موجود در لیست دوسانتون هستن. این افراد همون اشخاص با هویت رابط هستند.

3. بر خلاف باور عموم مبنی بر اینکه انتخاب دوستانشون بر اساس ویژگی های مشترک هست، مطالعات و بررسی ها نشون می ده که ما دوستانمون رو بر اساس نزدیکی محیطی و اجتماعی انتخاب می کنیم. کسانی که فعالیت های مشترکی با اون ها داریم و نه ویژگی های مشترک.
We're friends with the people we do things with, as much as we are with the people we resemble. We don't seek out friends, in other words. We associ­ate with the people who occupy the same small, physical spaces that we do.

4. Six degrees of separation doesn't mean that everyone is linked to everyone else in just six steps. It means that a very small number of people are linked to everyone else in a few steps, and the rest of us are linked to the world through those special few.

5. یکی دیگه از مطالبی که یاد گرفتم این بود که این دسته افرادی که با هویت رابط می شناسیم و دایره دوستان زیادی دارن آدم هایی هستن که ناخودآگاه معتقند که همه آدم هایی که قراره ببینن به یک نحوی فوق العاده و شگفت انگیزن و این طرز فکر باعث می شه زیبایی های آدم ها رو در حالی که از دید بقیه پنهان هست ببینن... جای بسی تامل داره این موضوع...

6. یک موضوع کاربردی و بسیار جالب دیگه در خصوص پیدا کردن شغل این هست که طبق آمار، اغلب افرادی که مشغول به کارهای رده بالا و خوب می شن اغلب شغلشون رو از طریق آشنایانشون (چه خیلی دور و چه خیلی نزدیک) پیدا می کنن که این مسئله اهمیت داشتن شبکه دوستان بزرگ رو مشخص می کنه.
The strength of weak ties... Acquaintances, in short, represent a source of social power, and the more acquaintances you have the more power­ful you are.

7. The more close an idea a message come to a connector, the more probability that it spreads.

8. Mavens: Those people who hoard knowledge if particular subjects and present them to anyone need that type of information merely out of goodwill which in turns make them popular and trustworthy.

9. The broken window theory این نظریه بسیار جالب می گه اگر یک پنجره ای شکسته بشه و تعمییر نشه، باعث می شه که به مرور پنجره های بیشتری شکسته بشن و این آغازی می شه برای گسترش بی نظمی و جرم. وجود کوچکترین نشانه از آلودگی یا بی نظمی و بی توجهی به اون باعث گسترش اون می شه.
crime is the inevitable result of disorder. If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge. Soon, more windows will be broken, and the sense of anarchy will spread from the building to the street on which it faces, sending a signal
that anything goes.

10. the convictions of your heart and the actual contents of your thoughts are less important, in the end, in guiding your actions than the immediate context of your behavior

11. Peer influence and community influence are more important than family influence in determining how children turn out

12. Caring about someone deeply is exhausting thus limiting us on the number of people we can mentally afford to heartily and truly care about.

13. Transactive memory: حافظه انتقالی به این معنی هست که ما مواردی در زندگیمون داریم مثل شماره تلفن، آدرس، یا مجموعه مواردی که باید بهشون رسیدگی کنیم که این ها رو در حافظه خودمون حفظ نمی کنیم، بلکه در جایی ذخیرشون می کنیم و آن جا را که نگهدارنده اون موارد هست به خاطر می سپاریم.
مثلا مسائل زیادی هستن مثل یک تجربه یا یک نوع بازی یا محاوره که حفظ و نگهداریشون رو بر عهده شریک زندگیمون می سپاریم. به همین خاطر طلاق یا جدایی انقدر دردناک می شن، به این دلیل که دیگه به بخشی از اون خاطرات دست رسی نمی توانیم داشته باشیم.

کلام آخر: یک ستاره ای که کم شد از امتیازش به دلیل حجیم بودن کتاب بود که می تونست خیلی خلاصه تر باشه. البته این مورد بین اغلب کتاب ها مشترک هست که دلیلش مسائل اقتصادی و مالی هست بیشتر. اما در کل کتاب واقعا خواندنی و آموزنده ای بود، و ��ز مطالعش لذت بردم.

I think missed the best by date for this book. It's more fun than an introductory course in sociology and covers some of the same material. Reminded me of Bellwether by Connie Willis and William Gibson's Blue Ant series. All looking for the point where people change behavior and a new trend begins.

I loved the part about creating the children's education tv programs Sesame Street and Blue's Clues. What worked with preschoolers, and what didn't.

It seems likely Gladwell relies on his enthusiasm for his theory more than fact. That being said, I'll probably read more of his books. It's good food for thought.

کتاب عالی ای بود، اولش یکم سرد شروع میشه و موضوعش تکراری بنظر میاد ولی تو بخش the law of the few اوج میگیره. مفاهیم connector و maven و salesman فوق العاده جالب و کاربردی بود مخصوصا برای افرادی که به بیزینس و روان شناسی علاقه دارن. توی بخش the stickness factor با اینکه موضوع جالبه ولی باز یکم معمولی میشه و جزئیات زیادی مطرح میشه که لزومی نداره ولی دوباره تو بخش power of context اوج میگیره. دو فصل راجب context هست که هم فواید کاری هم فواید فردی و شخصی میتونه براتون داشته باشه. در کل بسیار لذت بردم از خوندن این کتاب گرچه هنوز outliers تو کتاب های گلدول بهترینه بنظرم. واسه کتاب بعدی سراغ David and Goliath میرم و بعد ازون ریویو کامل راجب کتاب های گلدول مینویسم

Malcolm Gladwell shows us with this book that he is a jack-of-all-trades (or intellectual disciplines) and master of none. He very loosely weaves together existing social science and economic research to support his thin idea that there is a "tipping point" in all epidemics. While it was a page turner and interesting to read, his glib conclusory statements interpreting others' research was a bit jarring... For example, use of the word "always" when describing a social phenomenon is not a practice to which most trained social scientists would subscribe. I was also hoping for more practical advice resulting from his work, but not much was to be found other than that many complex forces (people, context, etc.) are at work in achieving a tipping point in most epidemics.

When I write reviews, I revisit my 1-5 star rating guide. It was inspired  by a friend , though I've adapted it slightly. Five stars is a book everyone should read, three stars is really only if you're obsessive about reading everything on a particular topic, and one star, well, is reserved for books that might mislead.

It's not that Gladwell isn't a good writer, or that there aren't good ideas in here. There are great ideas. But, the problem is they're buried amidst too much crap that misleads, misdirects, and otherwise misinforms. And, if you're not careful about it, the polish and pizazz of Gladwell's writing makes it hard to discern between the two. There are beautiful pieces of meat here, but also infected pockets of pus and botulism riddled veggies... and it's not really easy to eat one from the plate without risking picking up a bit of the other, especially when it's all presented so beautifully.

First, though, the good. Gladwell, as is often recognized, has an incredible ability to convey complicated stories in simple, accessible prose. He's a profoundly engaging writer with a knack for two particular rhetorical moves. First, he's excellent with analogies, comparisons, and cases. His examples are vivid and compelling. They're easy to understand and well-told vignettes. And, they're delivered in a way that helps to unpack and make obvious big and complex points. Second, he has a real gift for taking complicated science and distilling it down to simple stories. His accounting of research analyzing positive and negative body language of different reporters when talking about various politicians, for instance, takes a messy subject and makes it hugely approachable. This is a legitimate gift, and Gladwell ought to be commended for it.

The problem, though, is that this gift for simplifying complex stories down into simple, digestible nuggets ends up being the undoing of The Tipping Point. The book is ultimately an attempt to distill a bestseller set of "five simple rules that explain the universe!" Making matters worse, where this simplification happens, it generally happens with precious little acknowledgement of the complexity, leaving the reader with no idea that they're being sold a clean, one-sentence explanation of a phenomenon that's much more complex.

This is manifest in a few different ways, worth exploring in turn.

One ongoing problem is the use of equivocation. Rarely does Gladwell pin down the meaning of particular terms (e.g., "tipping point," "contagious," etc). This lets him play remarkably fast and loose with their application. For instance, the first chapter on epidemics (which reads particularly roughly in the current COVID context) harps on about the way that epidemics are characterized by tipping points where things take off. But, this is so much of a truism as to become useless for revealing anything. Yes, sometimes a contagion does indeed experience exponential or rapid growth. But, pointing out the idea of "tipping points" does precious little to explain why it happened then and not some other time. It doesn't explain why countries have had, periodically, a little success containing COVID only to have it resurge later. It doesn't explain why the "tipping point" looks entirely different in different countries, cities, or times.

Similarly, Gladwell is all too keen to treat his observation that "tipping points" exist as a causal explanation of the world, when it actually appears to be a result that shows up in some cases and not others. I'm happy to grant that tipping points can and do exist, but noting that they exist does precious little to help us understand why they do. By playing fast and loose with language, and periodically committing fallacies of equivocation, the analysis ends up obscuring more than it reveals.

To understand these limitations, it's worth summarizing Gladwell's core argument. Gladwell thinks we pay insufficient attention to tipping points as a phenomenon, then argues they can be explained through three factors: The Law of the Few; the Law of Stickiness; and the Law of Context. The Law of the Few refers to the idea that a select few play a disproportionate role in shaping these exponential phenomenon. Connectors are those with extensive social networks, mavens are the nerds who know a ton about a specialist topic, and salesmen are those who can sell ideas. Stickiness refers to either an intrinsic or added property, wherein the idea is more easily retained and captivating to the listener. And, the Law of Context suggests that small factors (e.g., graffiti on subway cars in his Broken Window Theory example) can end up causing the tipping point.

(Want to quit this review here? The TL;DR: is that all of these "laws" end up being pretty worthless. If something had a "tipping point," you can almost inevitably find at least one of the "laws" in play. But, a near-infinite number of things also have salespeople selling them, or are sticky... and yet they never tip. These "laws" sound good in hindsight, but don't actually offer any guidance looking forward in trying to predict which things will or won't hit a tipping point.)

A related problem is also present in his analysis of the causes of tipping points. For instance, one chapter focuses on the drop-off of crime in NYC in the 90s. Gladwell uses the "broken windows theory" to explain this drop-off, with only a passing nod to any other explanations. But, of course, for anyone who has actually studied this change in detail, it's a heck of a lot more complicated than "they removed the graffiti from the subway cars."

This isn't to say that I have something against simple stories. Simple stories can be helpful and good. I just finished writing a review of another book, Stephen Pyne's  Florida: A Fire Survey , that is effective precisely because it uses simple stories. But, the key difference is that Pyne's volume succeeds where simple stories are told about specific things. It can be helpful to tell a relatively simple story of how wildfire management evolved in a specific National Park. By contrast, Gladwell's fails when it tries to tell simple stories that explain absolutely everything.

At the end of the day, then, Gladwell's analysis gives the mirage of explanation while actually having absolutely no explanatory power. One needn't look much further than Gladwell's new afterward to see why this is such a problem. In it, Gladwell is discussing the emergence of school shootings in America post Columbine. He's keen to use Columbine itself as the causal event; the genesis of contagion that would go on to inspire similar actions by other youngsters. Here's what he says to explain why Columbine can be seen as the cause:

"Millions of kids who grow up just as emotionally impoverished as Andy Williams don't walk into their school one morning and start shooting. The difference is Columbine. Andy Williams was infected by this example of Eric Harris and Dyllan Klebold..."

But this doesn't explain a da#% thing! The thing Gladwell needs to explain here is why some teenagers walk into schools and shoot them up, yet so many don't. If contagion were the answer, we'd see dozens of school shootings a day, curving upwards exponentially like COVID case counts.

But we don't. Don't get me wrong, we see way too many school shootings, and this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

But, at the end of the day, Gladwell's analysis doesn't get us any further to doing that.

It doesn't get us any further because it focuses on telling simple, "just so" stories. Look at any case study long enough, and you can come up with an explanation of why it succeeded or failed. You can draw out a "maven" or "connector" who gave it the push it needed, just at the right moment. Or, you can bemoan the lack of suitable context, trapping and preventing it from reaching its full potential.

But the theory has no predictive power at all. Nothing in the book lets us discern between what things will and won't reach a tipping point. If a novel pathogen emerged; a new invention was created; a new fad bubbled out of a hipster coffee spot... the book wouldn't be able to tell us anything about it until hindsight kicked in.

And that's the real trouble with this book. It leaves you feeling as though you understand the world better, when actually you've just been bombarded with a set of "just so" stories that make sense when the narrative is simple, but fall apart when more detail is considered. It's so well written that it can slip sneaky equivocations into the analysis and play fast and loose with the ideas. And, it's so engaging and compelling that it feels like everything adds up... because in the world of convenient, hindsight narratives, it somehow always does.

I first read about this concept several years ago in a New Yorker article that discussed the theory of epidemics as it relates to crime, particularly the power of context. A book (Fixing Broken Windows Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities by George Kelling) proposed that police should spend more time dealing with the little things, e.g., arresting people for public drunkenness, going after the street hookers small-time dope dealers, rather than putting resources into the high-profile, big crimes. "If a window is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and no one is in charge." This theory was adopted by David Gunn, the new director of the New York Transit System, after Kelling was brought in as a consultant. New York and the subway system were in the throes of a terrible crime wave (remember Bernard Goetz?). Gunn had the transit cops arrest fare-beaters, and they never allowed a graffiticovered car to enter service. The kids would spend three nights painting cars and then the workers would paint over what the kids had done. "It was a message to them. If you want to spend three nights of your time vandalizing a train, fine. But it's never going to see the light of day." The cops, at first angry they were spending time arresting simple fare-beaters — after all, only $1.25 was at stake — discovered that many of those they caught had records and were carrying guns, and many had outstanding warrants, and an important signal was being sent. In less than six years, the subway system became one of the safest. Mayor Giuliani hired the top transit cop to implement the same theory city-wide. The emphasis was now on the socalled "minor" stuff, the "squeegee men" who extorted money from drivers at intersections, public urination, throwing trash on the streets, and other "minor" crimes. The effect was sensational. The crime rate in New York plummeted. The murder rate fell to one of the lowest in the nation. Context was everything. Studies over the years have revealed that we are mistaken when we view character as something innate, and that we overestimate the importance of character traits when it comes to interpreting other people's behavior. It turns out that "character isn't what we think it is, or rather, what we want it to be. . . It's more like a bundle of habits and tendencies and interests, loosely bound together and dependent, at certain times, on circumstance and context." Broken Windows and the Power of Context theory say "that the criminal — far from being someone who acts for fundamental, intrinsic reasons and who lives in his own world — is actually someone acutely sensitive to his environment, who is alert to all kinds of cues, and who is prompted to commit crimes based on his perception of the world around him."

The book is much more than about crime and its causes. Gladwell is interested in systems and why certain people and linkages can create social epidemics, be they the purchasing of certain items in a store or how children react to concepts on television. Ideas and messages spread just the way viruses do, and if a certain mass is reached the epidemic begins and is caught by millions. Why do we remember Paul Revere's ride, but not the other fellow who set off in a different direction but carried the same message in the same manner? Gladwell has an explanation. He had two things going for him. He was a "connector," i.e., he knew and was known by almost everyone in the Boston area, but he was also a "maven," an individual that collected information about the regulars. Gladwell has filled the book with lively anecdotes that support the data he is presenting, making a fascinating read.

I already started reviewing this book a few posts back and wanted to give you a more complete rundown now that I finished it. While it started out a bit dated with the Hush Puppies example of something that tipped, and his Paul Revere example of a Connector and Maven sounded a bit Palinesque, the book was worth reading until the end. I suppose that since I have been living outside the US, I appreciate more global examples and this book is very US-centric in that aspect. Nonetheless, the idea that there are particularly “sticky” ideas and carriers of those ideas in the form of Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen so that they “Cross the Chasm” is not revolutionary but still insightful. That ideas are highly sensitive to their context is also obvious but the examples here abound. I particularly liked the explanation of Sesame Street psychology and it was thanks to this book that I discovered Blue’s Clues (like I said, I have been out of the US a LONG time) which is now a favorite of my kids. The parallel between teen suicide in Micronesia and teen smoking in the US was a bit of a stretch and as he offered a possible factor to minimize teen smoking, he wasn’t as generous for the kids in the Pacific. I think that the steady rise in cigarette prices has had a far more devastating effect on tobacco sales than his idea of reducing toxins in the cigarettes. Another curious side-story here: his explanation for the drop in crime in New York in the 80’s (freshly painted subways and fixed windows) is totally different than that of Levitt in Freakonomics (legalized abortion), so having read both, it is hard to know whom to believe…

What I came away from the book with was the conviction that communication is everything and that the very first slide or two of a presentation MUST absolutely create that “stickiness” for the idea to get transmitted. The other problem, however, I have is that with Facebook, Google, and Apple, each has definitely tipped but it would be hard to pin these to particular Connectors, Mavens or Salesmen. Perhaps, Apple can be explained by Mavens like myself using Macs but then, their astounding success is far more related to iTunes and the iPod and iPhone and I don’t see CMS playing here. Similarly, Facebook just came out of nowhere 7 years ago to dominate the internet. Google was just simple and incredibly humble in their pitch (selling words for cents a piece) but with earth-shattering results. If I may, Angry Birds in ONLY TWO YEARS has also tipped – $1B IPO planned for 2012 based on ONE SINGLE GAME! – but this was purely a word-of-mouth / Apple Store phenom. So, is there a new dynamic that needs to be afterword-ed on to The Tipping Point? What is the special chemistry for Rovio that made its game bigger than, say, Plants vs. Zombies or (one of my favorites) Infinity? Who were the Connectors here? Reviewers on the App Store? I suppose we hard-core iPhone addicts are the Mavens but the Salesman is merely the App Store? What is the lesson we can pull out of this? Perhaps we need another five to seven years to get a retrospective view for analysis. Or was Steve Jobs all three? Even then, that would partially explain Apple and Rovio’s success but how about Google and Facebook? It is certainly a brave new world.

So, here’s an idea, I’ll write the sequel to The Tipping Point in 2015 for its 25th anniversary. Unless, of course, Malcolm beats me to it

Here’s why you need to read The Tipping Point. You don’t!!

Look, it’s not because the writing is poor, the concepts disorganized, or the book fails to instruct. It’s simply that the ideas are anachronistic. This is no fault of Malcolm Gladwell. He published in 2000, wrote in ‘99, and used case studies from the mid-90’s. How could he have known he was publishing a book about social media on the eve of social media’s inchoate move into our social DeoxyriboNucleicAcid, or that the overgrowth of social connectedness would evolve at rates understated by the term logarithmic.

This is a snappy little book--a good one for Thursday evening book club affairs. I quite liked it. Digestible chapters with jaunty titles, connecting for the reader complex sociocultural beliefs to gravid marketing slogans. Pert discussion, and a context that builds on previous conclusions, leading the audience like an unbridled horse gently to water. Gladwell, he’s a good salesman, one that can close a deal without hiding a rotten premolar or repeatedly glancing at his wristwatch. It’s 3.5 stars.

Nevertheless, if you’ve fogged a mirror in the last 10 years, much of what Gladwell worked hard to synthesize in year 2000 is merely a matter of course in the mercurial, social, connected life we lead today. Essentially the book is about marketing. (There’s more herein than marketing, but that’s what I’d like to focus on). The title underscores a link throughout the book, viz., that no matter the medium, information reaches a ‘tipping’ point beyond which it spreads above and away from any reasonable measure of altitude control. He repeatedly uses the term epidemic, and I like the image that word conjures in my mind when I think of how pervasive and persistent and contagious marketing can be (like the scene in Ten Commandments where the pestilence of God’s wrath moves down from the moon and like a swampy yellow miasma flows through the streets of Ramses’s Egypt) . Gladwell lays down some meaty discussion about the ‘whys’ and ‘wherefore's’ of the nature of networked relationships, using sociology, psychology, penal philosophy, genetics, pop culture, economics, archeobiology, and personal interviews.

It’s a snapshot of a fossil, though. He is in essence describing our world when information was still Near Real Time (NRT), a military acronym meaning ‘actionable’ but not ‘exactable.’ We upgraded that acronym circa 2004-2006 when information became--no shit--Real Time. Real Time worldwide data is a phenomena we’ve only recently begun to comprehend and manipulate. Write a discussion about how your start-up can triangulate consumers, and you’ll have a lead story in Harvard Business Review. Develop an android app that geolocates high volume consumers, and Starbucks will give $$credit$$ to the first 10 people that check into their stores in Cleveland, Charlotte, and Chattanooga. Twitter trends topics, not daily, but hourly. Google Metrics displays global boolean traffic on word searches RIGHT NOW. Crowdsourcing, flash mobs, #hashtags. I can set a Google alert that pings me the next time Brittany Spears has an inadvertent bush shot at the Palms Casino. I can scan barcodes on my phone, and know by a factor of pennies where I can get the cheapest sun dried tomatoes. I can listen to any law enforcement scanner in the country while sitting in my tighty-whities in my fall-out basement. Gowalla, Foursquare, StumbleUpon, grooveshark, HTML5, mashable, MMORPGs, skype, Goodreads. And the every present memes--viral video memes, photo memes--Christ, look at the major news networks during an election and watch the TV anchors in the studio move to the floating, diaphanous plates of glass and enlarge voting counties and predict elections with two-fingered zoom.

Malcolm Gladwell could not have foreseen the breadth and rapidity of tipping points in today’s market. No one could have--not even industry leaders in year 2000. Tipping points are not isolated events anymore, like the slow resurgence of Hush Puppy shoes from 1994-1996 (the most cited tipping point in the book, and one Gladwell considers--by his own criteria--rapid). They are daily memes, forcing us into ever tighter circles of consumption, and causing many of us to brux our teeth when we lose cell coverage or go to airplane mode on our smart phones. SMART PHONES--a technology by itself that puts the rust on Gladwell’s conception of tipping points. Despite sound research methodology, and pertinent statistical evaluation, I don’t envision many people going back to The Tipping Point. It’s like reading last week’s headlines; last year’s Consumer Reports; financial data from 2008; political promises from 2006; real estate values from 2005, or the Manhattan skyline on 10 Sep 2001. Maybe for an anecdotal dissertation by some students squirreled away at Weber State or Lehigh University, but other than that I think most of the 77,000 Goodread reviews of this book occurred much nearer the time it was on the best seller list in 2000-2001. There are 4 copies available at my library. It ain’t flying off the shelves anymore, and neither is the 1994 Rand McNally Atlas. You dig?

But, wait, let’s go deeper. I dogeared these passages.

Here are the titles of the 4 parts of this book.
I.Epidemics
II. The Law of the Few: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen
III. The Stickiness Factor
IV. The Power of Context
-- These are important constituents in marketing, but Gladwell speaks of months and years. We both know it's days and hours in 2011.

What was the connection between the East Village and Middle America? The Law of the Few says the answer is that one of these exceptional people found out about the trend, and through social connections and energy and enthusiasm and personality spread the word about Hush Puppies. (p. 22)
-- Social connectedness was an ephemeral measurement in 1999. Now organizations have followers (see Facebook and Twitter) and can measure their daily virility (see the ‘like’ button and most-viewed videos on Youtube) and watch their epidemic spread (see trending topics on technorati or mashable or gizmodo).

It is safe to say that word of mouth is--even in this age of mass communications and multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns--still the most important form of human communication. Think, for a moment, about the last expensive restaurant you went to, the last expensive piece of clothing you bought, and the last movie you saw. In how many of those cases was your decision about where to spend your money heavily influenced by the recommendation of a friend...word-of-mouth appeals have become the only kind of persuasion that most of us respond to anymore. (p. 32)
-- Yes, word of mouth is, indeed, persuasive. But, today we are motivated and persuaded even more by word of text!!!

Your friends...occupy the same world that you do. They might work with you, or live near you, and go to the same churches, schools, or parties. How much, then, would they know that you wouldn’t know? Your acquaintances, on the other hand, by definition occupy a very different world than you. They are much more likely to know something that you don’t... Acquaintances, in short, represent a source of social power, and the more acquaintances you have the more powerful you are. (p. 54)
-- This is perhaps Gladwell’s most prophetic statement. I know more people today having never met face to face than actual people I knew in 1999.

Mavens have the knowledge and the social skills to start word-of-mouth epidemics. What sets Mavens apart, though, is not so much what they know but how they pass it along. The fact that Mavens want to help, for no other reason than because they like to help, turns out to be an awfully effective way of getting someone’s attention. (p. 67)
-- Today Lady Gaga, Kanye West, and Ben Affleck, combined, have more ‘followers’ than the population of Panama.

We have become, in our society, overwhelmed by people clamoring for our attention. In just the past decade, the time devoted to advertisements in a typical hour of network television has grown from 6 minutes to 9 minutes, and it continues to climb every year...estimates that the average American is now exposed to 254 different commercial messages in a day, up nearly 25% since the mid-1970s. There are now millions of web sites on the Internet, cable systems routinely carry over 50 channels of programming, and a glance inside the magazine section of any bookstore will tell you that there are thousands of magazines coming out each month... (p. 98)
-- Multiply all of the above figures by a factor of 10 to the 2nd power. A rate of growth that cannot be compared by measuring from 1999 back to the existence of Abraham.

The spread of any new and contagious ideology has a lot to do with the skillful use of group power. (p. 172)
-- The skillful use of group power makes me feel violated in today’s marketing environment.

لحظه شیوع، گسترش، فراگیرشدن و یا چیزی توی این مایه ها
موضوع کتاب فراگیر شدن و گسترش ایده ها و مدهای لباس و جرایم و محصولات و چیزهایی مثل اینه: اپیدمی‌ها. چطور یک چیز توی جامعه فراگیر می شه. چه عواملی این نوع موج ها رو ایجاد می کنن.
بین چیزهایی که فراگیر می شن، از اپیدمی بیماری ها گرفته تا شایعات و محصولات و داستان ها و ... یک سری اشتراکاتی وجود داره: رفتار مسری، تغییرات کوچیک تاثیرگذار(که منجر به رشد تصاعدی می شه) و تغییر سریع که اسمش رو گذاشته لحظه شیوع. خیلی وقت ها اصل موضوع، یا اصل ویروس یا اصل محصول یا اصل رفتار نامناسب و مجرمانه نمی تونه دلیل فراگیر شدن اون توی جامعه باشه. بلکه خیلی از عوامل جنبی و به ظاهر بی اهمیت باعث می شن تا اون چیز گسترش پیدا کنه و به رشد تصاعدی برسه. این عوامل توی سه موضوع خلاصه می شن: قاعده افراد محدود، چسبندگی و زمینه.
قاعده افراد محدود می گه همه آدم ها توی فراگیر شدن چیزها توی جامعه با هم برابر نیستند. به جای اینکه به همه افراد به صورت برابر توجه کنیم، بهتره فقط سه دسته آدم رو دنبال کنیم و بیخیال بقیه بشیم:
دسته اول کسایی هستن که اسمشون رو می ذاریم رابط ها. رابط ها کسایی هستند که دایره آشناهای زیادی دارن، و این آشناها توی زمینه های مختلف فعال هستن در نتیجه اونا با چند واسطه به خیلی جاها و خیلی از حوزه های مختلف رابطه پیدا می کنن. برای اینکه همکاری این آدم ها رو به دست بیارین باید برای اونها پاداش اجتماعی در نظر بگیرین. یعنی اونا از منتقل کردن پیام و ایده شما یک چیزی به دست بیارن.
گروه دوم کسایی هستن که اسمشون رو می ذاریم علاقه‌مندها. اینها کسایی هستن که به موضوع علاقه مند هستن و توی این زمینه یا به صورت سرگرمی یا حرفه ای فعالن و اطلاعات جمع می کنن و اگه فرصت پیش بیاد دانش خودشون رو هم به بقیه منتقل می کنن چون این موضوع برای اونها اهمیت داره و دوست دارن کمک کنن و دانش خودشون رو نشون بدن و اینا. این گروه مهمن. خصوصا برای اصل پیام و اصل ایده تون و گرفتن بازخورد و مخصوصا توی شروع کار. مثلا کسی که ماشین‌بازه، احتمال اینکه یک ماشین جدید رو بخره یا به سازنده بازخورد بده یا ... خیلی بیشتر از مصرف کننده عادیه.
گروه سوم هم فروشنده ها هستن. فروشنده ها کسایی هستن که عموم جامعه رو از نشونه ها و ارزش ها و روابط و ... مختلف توی این زمینه آگاه می کنن. اینها به عموم جامعه نشون می دن که ایده یا پیام شما جذابه و بهتره بهش ملحق بشن.
چسبندگی یکی از کیفیت های پیام و ایده و محصوله. برای این که افراد این ایده یا پیام رو قبول کنن و اجراش کنن و گسترشش بدن، باید ویژگی هایی داشته باشه: یکی اینکه شخصی باشه یعنی توی زندگی خود فرد تاثیر داشته باشه. یکی دیگه اینکه این پیام یا ایده باید کاربردی باشه و قابل اجرا. یعنی دستورالعمل روشن و شفافی داشته باشه و تردید ایجاد نکنه. و صدالبته اینکه مهم و قابل یادآوری باشه. خیلی وقت ها اهمیت بعضی از جنبه های فرعی پیام و ایده خیلی مهم تر از خود ایده یا پیامه. سختی کار اینه که همیشه مشخص نیست چه چیزی واقعا عامل تاثیرگذار اصلیه. به مجموع این ویژگی‌ها چسبندگی پیام می‌گیم.
موضوع سوم هم زمینه یا کانتکسه: آدم ها خیلی از بیشتر از اون چیزی که فکر می کنیم از محیط اطرافشون تاثیر می پذیرن. زمان و مکان و آدم ها و گروه ها و عوامل محیطی که توش قرار می گیرن تاثیر زیادی توی تصمیم ها و رفتار افراد داره. که خوب اینجا نظریه پنجره شکسته، چشم و همچشمی، نرم جامعه، زمان بندی به هنگام و موارد مشابه مطرح می شه.
وقتی چیزی می خواد فراگیر بشه اول یک عده آدم جدیدطلب که دوست دارن متفاوت باشن به هر دلیلی اون چیز رو به کار می گیرن، بعد کم کم اون چیز مورد توجه عموم واقع می شه و در نهایت یک عده ای هم که با تاخیر وارد این روند می شن هم اون رو قبول می کنن. پس سه مرحله وجود داره: تازه‌طلب‌ها/ عموم/دیررسیده‌ها (خودم که خیلی حال می‌کنم با این معادل‌های من درآوردی). برای اپیدمیک شدن یک ایده اول از تازه طلب ها شروع کنین و اونها رو جذب کنین و ازشون بازخورد بگیرین و هواشونو داشته باشین و اونها رو تحت تاثیر قرار بدین. برای گسترش ایده هم از رابط ها و فروشنده ها کمک بگیرین و براشون پاداش های اجتماعی ایجاد کنین. اون آخری ها هم که مهم نیستن بیخیالشون شین.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
بر خلاف اون دو تا کتاب دیگه که از این نویسنده خوندم، این یکی بد نبود. گویا اول این کتاب نویسنده پرفروش شده و بعدش رو آورده به دوشیدن این شهرت و موقعیت و تولید محتوای سوال برانگیز. اما با وجود این برای قسمت های مهم جوابی نداشت. اینکه علاقه مندها رو از کجا پیدا کنیم یا چه طور برای رابط ها پاداش اجتماعی ایجاد کنیم یا فروشنده ها رو چطور به کار بگیریم و یا با چه ملاک هایی می تونیم عوامل موثر رو توی چسبندگی پیام رو مشخص کنیم و موارد دیگه خیلی مورد توجه واقع نشدن و بیشتر وقت رو صرف توضیح پدیده ها و مثال ها می کنه تا ارائه راهکار.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
یک نکته بی ربط:
یک زمانی توی نیویورک موج جرایم مختلف ایجاد شده بود و بی نظمی و هرج و مرج شدیدی راه افتاده بوده. و بعد از یک مدتی همه چیز خوب می شه. تا حالا بارها و بارها این موضوع رو به عنوان مثال توی کتاب های مختلف دیدم:
یک کتابی هست که می گه این نتیجه حاصل کار شهردار جدید توی برخورد شدید با کوچیک ترین جرایم بوده و نظریه پنجره شکسته رو توضیح می ده و می گه توی بقیه جنبه های زندگی هم پیاده اش کنیم. کتاب فعلی هم در ادامه همین نظریه این موضوع رو ربط به محیط آدم ها داد و تاثیر عوامل محیطی روی رفتار آدم ها و این جور چیزا.
یک یارو دیگه بود(یادم نمیاد کجا خوندم) که می گفت این ماجرا به خاطر این بوده که دولت اقتصاد رو خوب کرده بود و سیاست های رونق اقتصادی و غیره باعث شده بود تا نوجوون ها و جوون ها کار پیدا کنن و در نتیجه دیگه علاف نبودن و کار داشتن و خلاصه کار دولت بوده.
یکی دیگه هم بود(فکر کنم نویسنده فریکونامیک) می‌گفت به خاطر این بوده که دو دهه قبلش قانون آزادی سقط جنین تصویب شده بود و در نتیجه تعداد بچه های بی خانواده یا قشر ضعیف یا تولید بچه توی شرایط نامساعدی که در معرض جرایم مختلف قرار می گرفتن کم شده بود و برای همین آمار جرم پایین اومده بود و اینا.
استدلال های دیگه ای هم برای توضیح این کاهش آمار جرم توی کتاب های دیگه اومده.
یک اتفاقی افتاده و هر کی هر چی دوست داره نتیجه‌گیری می‌کنه. البته هیچ کدوم اینها ناقض همدیگه نیستن. این موضوع به یادمون میاره که زندگی به ما دلیل نمی‌ده، ما فقط با پدیده‌ها مواجه می‌شیم نه با دلایل پدیده‌ها. و از جایی که همیشه باید بفهمیم که چی شد که اینجوری شد، معمولا یک بهونه و دلیل و توجیهی برای خودمون می‌تراشیم. اینجوری می‌شه که نگرشمون بیش از حدی که باید، تعیین کننده می‌شه. هر کسی از پنجره خودش به جهان نگاه می‌کنه. حواسمون باشه که خیلی محدود نشیم و وضع موجود رو به یک عامل خلاصه نکنیم. معمولا همه اینها هست و اینها نیست. در نتیجه: تفکر سیستمی.