Imprecision in The Tipping Point

Alex Moser

Emergence 362

Prof. Paul Grobstein

March 25, 2007

Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point is a discussion of epidemics and how they begin. Gladwell presents three rules defining his concept of a tipping point, essentially a threshold at which a trend will “tip” and become an epidemic. The theory as argued is applicable to all sorts of epidemics, whether syphilis, fashion trends or crime. While written to be accessible and keep interest, The Tipping Point fails to present a truly cohesive theory largely because it relies so heavily on anecdotal evidence and implied relationships. I will present the rules of the theory and discuss the evidence Gladwell presents to explicate the strengths and weaknesses of this book.

The theory can be divided into three rules, the law of the few, the stickiness factor and the power of context. The law of the few suggests that in any epidemic only a few actors must be particularly involved. In a syphilis epidemic there may be a core social group of promiscuous individuals who spread the disease among the group and among their multiple sexual partners relatively quickly. Gladwell distinguishes three distinct groups who usually comprise the “few” involved in word of mouth epidemics.

The three groups are Mavens, experts on specific topics (best deals on electronics, restaurants, etc.) who enjoy sharing their information; Connectors, who know tons of people and make a habit of connecting them when prudent or necessary; and Salesmen, who are capable of selling an idea to anyone almost regardless of any other factor. The theory is that mavens begin to distribute their superior information and by some means (or perhaps even on their own) connectors will discover this information. Connectors then distribute this information because it is in their character to do so. Gladwell tells a story of how one connector he knows learned about a new Japanese restaurant from his daughter (whose friend owned the place) and after deciding the food is good passes the word on to a dozen of his acquaintances who might be interested. Finally, salesmen are those capable of pushing their opinions on us through some ineffable force of personality. The importance of these groups becomes clear of thought about in relation to the “six degrees” phenomenon. Gladwell suggests that we are all so closely connected not because we all know so many random people, but because we all know the same set of connectors. Of course, connectors likely know at least a few mavens and may distribute the information they gain from them. Or they may be convinced of something by a Salesman acquaintance. One person may even have several of these aspects.

This theory is in some sense compelling. It offers us an understanding of word of mouth epidemics based on a few important types of people interacting with everyone else. In some aspects it is emergent; the simple rules on which these special types operate can create sweeping social phenomena. Yet it falls short of being a unified theory, instead floundering as a collection of implied connections and anecdotal evidence. Gladwell presents the types separately and makes little effort to tie them together. It is clear that a maven providing information to a connector might get that information to a great many more people, yet it is less clear where salesmen play into this relationship. In fact, Gladwell’s discussion of salesmen revolves mainly around a particularly skilled insurance salesman and Peter Jennings’ uncanny ability to influence the voting behavior of his audience simply by the demeanor he possesses when discussing his preferred candidate. It is possible that this ambiguity is intentional; that Gladwell believes the few are spread randomly throughout a general populace and that by interacting in their own way create word of mouth epidemics. Yet even this implication of the emergent nature of these epidemics falls somewhat short. Does an epidemic start only when the number of “few” involved tips? Are salesmen a necessary piece somehow? Neither of these questions is answered in a satisfactorily cogent manner.

Salesmen seem to be in concept closely related to the second rule, the stickiness factor. The stickiness factor suggests that information can be packaged in some way to make it irresistible. It is an easy leap to see salesmen as people with an innate gift for packaging information. Gladwell discusses Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues as examples of particularly “sticky” television. Both use rigorous testing of segments and plot outlines to see how their (preschool) audience will respond and make changes to ensure each episode and segment is as engaging as possible. However, the book again falls short of framing this concept in a way that relates to the rest of the theory. Salesmen maybe the sticky part of the law of the few, but their role was unclear. And his discussion of Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues has no clear bearing on word of mouth epidemics. I think The Tipping Point would have benefited from a more in depth discussion of how the “stickiness” of something, whether it made that thing memorable or led to specific actions among the people it affected, contributed to the formation of an epidemic. It seems that the implied relationship between stickiness and an epidemic’s tipping point should be the ease with which the epidemic spreads and the duration it stays active for, but again this is never clearly stated by Gladwell.

Finally and most interestingly, Gladwell addresses the power of context. His major examples come from social trends in New York City. The safety and cleanliness of the New York subway system was greatly increased after the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) made policy changes to address the commonplace small problems rather than the rare large ones. For instance, the subways became safer once the transit police began making arrests for fare-dodging and cleaner once they stopped tolerating graffiti on the cars. These relatively simple changes wrought major change in the system as a whole. Similarly, crime rates across New York plummeted largely due to a new focus of the police on catching small offenders. Public urination, littering and the like were taken more seriously, causing a reduction in all types of crime. Gladwell suggests this is because of the “broken window” theory. Essentially, when possible evil-doers are on a dirty, graffiti covered subway car it seems more allowable and appropriate to engage in destructive behavior. When one lives in a city where there’s so little order people can urinate in the streets, will there be enough order to stop one from robbing? The context in which one considers actions seems to have more to do with whether one executes them than personal proclivity for said actions. This point is reiterated (as Gladwell points out) by the Stanford Prison Experiment in which perfectly normal, kind people were turned into cruel guards and rebellious prisoners simply by taking on those roles in a prison environment. This strikes me as the most emergent concept in the book. Something as basic as the situation, the context, in which something occurs can determine almost everything about what will occur. The events are a result of the characteristics of the environment and the rules governing it. Free will is not part of the equation.

Overall The Tipping Point is an interesting and easy read with several distinct downfalls. First, as I’ve said before, it lacks cohesion. Gladwell presents many interesting ideas and concepts but never goes so far as to place a structure around them. This is a fatal flaw, as the ideas in the book cannot then be used as a unified theory, only as the individual tools they represent. It has emergent aspects in the way it conceives of word of mouth epidemics and in the importance it places on context. However the imprecision of Gladwell’s writing makes it difficult to see these aspects clearly as well. Gladwell’s reliance on anecdotes and his hesitation to state things concretely are the greatest weaknesses of this book as a sociological work. As a non-academic piece of social theory however, it raises some very interesting concepts and may be useful for those looking to develop advertising campaigns.