So I’ve been thinking about how Gladwell’s Tipping point – and particularly the 80/20 rule, where the 20% doing most of the work are broken out into connectors, mavens, and salesmen – might apply to Twitter. I’m of two minds on this. On one hand, I was trying to construct an argument that beyond a certain threshold of activity, following / follower ratios could be used to bucket people into the 3 categories. On the other, I was thinking that perhaps the ease at which people can connect through social media platforms like Twitter might make the distinctions irrelevant.
In the first case, my thinking was going like this. The people that have a low following / follower ratio (for example, from my “following list” Tim O’Reilly and Mathew Ingram at 1/58 and 1/8, respectively, would fall into this category) might be considered primarily as mavens – information specialists. Those with ratios closer to the 1/1 range (such as DaivRawks and ChrisBrogan) would be considered primarily as connectors – people with a special gift for bringing the world together. Sort of by default, if this structure was to work that would leave those in the (say) 8/1 range as salesmen – persuaders with powerful negotiation skills that make others want to agree with them.
But as my inclusion of the words “sort of by default” might indicate, I think things kind of fall apart for this last category (salesmen) - and one might even argue that if you’re in an 8/1 following to follower ratio, perhaps you better fit in the 80% category (i.e. those not doing much of the “work”). So I pondered this a bit, and that’s what led me to wonder whether platforms like Twitter make the connector / salesmen distinction redundant.
Using ChrisBrogan as an example again, I’d certainly call him a connector – but I’d also consider him a very persuasive, charismatic person that “makes others want to agree with him.” In other words, he’d also be a “salesman” in his area of interest. And looking back at the Tipping Point definitions, the number of connections he has (in the 30,000 range) makes the connector “threshold” of 100 or more individuals seem kind of antiquated.
In turn, I guess the argument would be that one of the most powerful things about social media is that it’s enabled connectors to effectively, for lack of a better term, disintermediate the need for salesmen. But then as I think about this more, I’m not fully comfortable with that distinction either, because I see a lot of maven elements in the top connectors as well.
So… I guess I’m confused. I’d be interested to know if anyone else has looked into or thought about this – basically how (or if) the tipping point theories connect with social media, twitter, etc. When I search for stuff, all I keep finding is question about when a tipping point might be hit (i.e. when usage might explode), but very little tying into the connector/ maven / salesman idea. Any thoughts out there?
30 responses so far ↓
1 Johnny // Jan 15, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Of course his theories apply. you have the mavens, connectors, salesmen, etc. You could argue that all the theories and elements within the tipping point apply to Twitter.
@jschrep
2 bob wan kim // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I think its too early to tell is the 80 20 rule applies across twitter. As far as tipping point… I once asked a friend and myspace exec “what’s the magic number when my own social media site will grow on its own?” His answer? By sms: “1.” @journik
3 PurpleCar // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hi nice to meet you. When I read Tipping Point, I felt an identification with the personality Gladwell describes as a “connector.” That is how I live my life. It isn’t how many people in real life that you know, it is who you know and what you remember about them. I tend to remember people’s interests, so I introduce them to like-minded acquaintances. I do the same connecting behaviors with idea threads and people.
Since the advent of social media, I’ve used the tools to further use this aspect of my personality. Perhaps you should first ask people how they see themselves in relation to Gladwell’s personality types and then see how they use the technology. I’ll bet the correlation is quite high. People don’t change their nature to fit tools, they change the tools to fit their nature.
After that, I’d love to hear your theories about Gladwell’s Outliers posit that 10,000 hours of practice makes an expert. If anyone is at all close to that kind of time investment, it’s Brogan!
4 Susan Murphy // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I am no expert on the “tipping point” in terms of Gladwell, but in my experience and opinion, the tipping point is usually predicted a fair bit in advance but usually nobody is aware it’s happened until after it’s already been reached. One thing leads to another to another and before we know it we’ve arrived.
I understand and share the confusion and you have brought some very interesting points to the table.
I consider social media to be the great leveler. In this space, everyone gets an equal opportunity to be a maven, a connector AND a salesperson. Do some excel at it? To be sure. The cream still rises to the top.
However, the key difference with social media, when compared to previous mediums whereby people could become leaders in a space, is that now, we all have access to the same tools. Previously, I typically had to be a published author, a journalist, a celebrity, or a successful businessperson to be an influencer.
Now, we all have equal power to start a blog, sign up for Twitter, begin telling our stories, and begin influencing others as salespeople, connectors AND mavens.
Perhaps then, the tipping point has already been reached. Perhaps, it’s the point where the playing field was leveled, and where we all got the chance to have our voice heard.
Thanks for getting me thinking about this!
5 Amanda // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Interesting post Denis. I’m not convinced that social media has done away with the need for salesmen. Rather, some social media platforms (e.g. Twitter) may just be better suited to the goings-on of connectors and mavens, rather than salesmen. Or, as a recent tweet conversation suggested, the selling comes later on Twitter; first comes connecting and building relationships.
You haven’t commented on the trends and value of retweets and @replys. Have you considered their connection to the Tipping Point of Twitter and Gladwell’s connectors, mavens, and salesmen?
Great stuff to think about.
@AmandaFenton
6 John Michael Cannon // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I’m commenting not because I really have anything smart to say, but because I want to see where this conversation goes. I’d love to see more people talk about this. I’m a huge Gladwell fan. It’s been a while since I’ve read the Tipping Point. But I just finished reading Blink, twice, and I can’t wait to read his next book. I’m very interested in this topic. Thank you Mr. Hancock for bringing this up. I’m going to have to re-read Tipping Point.
7 ap4p // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:18 pm
That’s pretty much over analysis for the average twitter user. However I like the descriptions in that tipping point article. I would consider Chris Brogan to be both a connector and a salesman as you have mentioned. The stickiness factor pretty much sums it up for me as you have to have something worthwhile to sell. Take a look at what David Armano did here
http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2009/01/pleas-help-us-help-daniellas-family.html. David Armano was also a connector, and a salesman in that respect. He also completely, underestimated the outcome.
8 David Leonhardt // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Well, the one conclusdion I think you are reaching is that a platform like Twitter makes the world flatter and makes more of us connectors. I am not sure if it is relevant if a person follows very few people. I try to follow fairly few, not because I don’t want to talk with more people, but because too many messages from too many people are coming in, and I am missing some really valuable tweets from certain people as it is (my main reason for using TweetDeck, by the way).
David Leonhardt @amabaie
9 Eva Ulian // Jan 15, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I think that theories on maven and salesmen are pretty accurate. To my mind, the degree of greyness falls on the connectors. The connector is not there simply for fun, socialize or make friends, which incidently there is no category to cover this latter group of people. There should be a 4th category which can be called “natural” for people who just want to socialize with others as we do on a normal basis in the real world.
But to return to the connector with multi-thousand followers, he/she is a professional who is there for a purpose which he/she is successful at because he/she enjoys it- So where do normal people who have no other aim but to mix and be known, otherwise be cut off from the rest of the world, because they live on top of a remote hill in Italy, fit in?
10 denisbhancock // Jan 15, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Thanks for the excellent responses so far! It’s given me a lot to think about.
Bob: but if 80/20 didn’t apply that would be a major story unto itself, non?
PurpleCar: excellent idea for a survey, though I must say that I for one am somewhat changing my nature to fit… or I guess a better word is leverage the tools. Social media can be particularly wonderful for people that aren’t “naturally” social. Re-reviewing outliers shortly…
Susan: Like the wording of social media as the “great leveler”… but wonder if it enables a different type of cream to rise to the top?
Amanda: another great addition. Prehaps I didn’t take it down to a deep enough level… RTs & @s could certainly be fit in. Hmmmm…
John: Thanks! :0
ap4p: thanks for that link… love stories like that. I never like(d) the term stickiness for some reason, but it does seem to add something here.
David: so might that imply the 80/20 rule could become (say) the 50/50?
Eva: Interesting. Not only might I have been confused, but I got confused over the wrong one of the three!
Hope the comments keep coming in… now to return to my den to think about this some more for awhile.
11 PurpleCar // Jan 15, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Denis, I knew you’d say that. Yes, shy people find more communication with social media, but they don’t find their voice. Their voice and opinions are already there. Social media just gives them a silent megaphone.
12 denisbhancock // Jan 15, 2009 at 8:34 pm
PurpleCar: very well put. Though I must add that one other thing social media allows one to be engage on a topic and actively discuss it without having to give IMMEDIATE responses. I often like to pause for a few minutes and think about a comment / idea / etc… no problem here or on the blogosphere, but very akward at cocktail parties / group meetings/ etc.
13 PurpleCar // Jan 16, 2009 at 5:49 am
Denis, true. “Thinking on one’s feet” is definitely a skill most of us don’t have. OK, I’ll buy that both assimilation and accommodation of the tools happens. Still, I don’t think the tools have the ability to totally change a personality. Maybe the tools just open up some opportunities for us. I’d love to see Gladwell team up with some psych researchers to do some assessments on the social media crowd. The distinctions between connectors, mavens and salespeople in Twitter and social-media-at-large are a bit meshed, but I’m not sold on whether they are irrelevant. 20% of the people are doing the early adoption/exploration/thought leader work on Twitter, where 80% have less than 100 followers and rarely have tweets “of substance” (with links, new apps, provocative questions about the space, etc.). I’ll bet Gladwell’s model could hold up ok if you allow for each person of the 20% to have a little bit of maven, a little bit of connector, and a little bit of salesperson. Seems like all those duties are needed to get a big voice in social media.
14 Eva Ulian // Jan 16, 2009 at 6:27 am
I can’t agree with purple car saying that people do not form their own opinions on the social media. Maybe P.C. should take a closer look at some posts, I can’t see some of them, including mine, possibly be plagiarized by anyone.
On the other hand I agree with denisbhancock being in front of a keyboard thoughts just come easy, the brain tends to freeze at times in front of a group of people, or even just another person- it simply is not the same thing.
15 PurpleCar // Jan 16, 2009 at 6:29 am
Eva, where did I say that people don’t form their own opinions? I said that people have opinions whether or not social media exists. I posited that the technology doesn’t change personality.
16 Eva Ulian // Jan 16, 2009 at 8:44 am
Sorry if I misinterpreted what you have said:
“Yes, shy people find more communication with social media, but they don’t find their voice. Their voice and opinions are already there.”
I interpreted the fact that opinions and voices being “already” there, such were supplied by the media especially as the sentence was preceded by people who don’t find their voice, implying they are devoid of one.
Anyway, you have cleared it up, so everything’s ok.
17 denisbhancock // Jan 16, 2009 at 10:18 am
More great thoughts PurpleCar… meshing them into my next post shortly (I have a hunch the distinctions will still hold too). One additional thought on the “thinking on your feet” thing… it’s true most people can’t do it. But the other angle is that I would argue that for the best / most provocative questions, “thinking on your feet” is sub-optimal. While real-life conversation often demands an immediate response, having even a minute to formulate one’s thoughts first will almost always lead to a better answer.
That’s what I really love about this stuff. Not only does the variable time delays allow for “slower” thinkers to engage, but I’m sure that even those that think extremely well on their feet can come up with better insights and contributions by thinking just that little extra bit.
18 PurpleCar // Jan 16, 2009 at 10:37 am
Eva, my sentence that you quoted contained a lot of colloquialism in it. I should write more clearly, especially where international audiences are reading. Thanks for pointing that out.
Denis, what a fun post! Lots of great thoughts here. I laughed when I read your last response, not from its content but at the image it gave me. I thought about how comment threads turn out when angry fingers type away in haste. Unfortunately, many of us webfolk don’t take ENOUGH time before they comment! LOL!
I seem to recall learning something about how the forefathers of the USA preferred written argument for the very reasons of which you speak. But this leads us to a skill, again, that Gladwell doesn’t mention: prose. The ability to construct comprehensible prose (aside from a solid argument). You may have hit on a whole new area of study: “The online/offline personality and its respective influence ratings.”
You may have just broken my brain…
19 SuzeMuse » A Word on Partnerships // Jan 16, 2009 at 10:40 am
[...] woke up this morning thinking about something that fascinates me about social media. Yesterday in Denis B Hancock’s great blog post on tipping points, I made the comment that social media is the great leveler. It gives anyone with an Internet [...]
20 The next step in applying Gladwell/ Tipping Point theories to twitter users « Exploring where economics, marketing, and new technologies collide // Jan 16, 2009 at 2:37 pm
[...] Stock Picks ← How might Gladwell / Tipping Point theories apply to Twitter users? [...]
21 AussieWebmaster // Jan 19, 2009 at 2:16 am
I definitely think you need to look beyond the numbers – since you can build them artificially – and look at the exchanges and actions – if you could see what links were clicked (so here a RT may be as good as it gets – though following links to blogs and watching for comments such as I am doing could be another) and responses to @ comments could reflect power relationships…
You open up some serious thought… thanks for the mental exercise.
22 denisbhancock // Jan 19, 2009 at 8:44 am
AussieWebmaster,
I was just thinking the same thing (see my latest response on the follow-up post). While I talked about it in terms of various @s in particular being used for different purposes, the ability to game key numbers is – as you point out – a serious problem.
I think this is particularly the case when you’re looking at follower / following numbers, which I originally started with but am getting away from. My hunch is that it will be easy to find 2 people that have similarly huge numbers for both, while one is a real “connector”, while the other just played the game well.
As you refer to, numbers that are less likely gamed – such as link clicks – could prove more fruitful.
23 AussieWebmaster // Jan 19, 2009 at 9:12 am
The is the Twitter Grader here http://twitter.grader.com/aussi ewebmaster
But can’t quite see what their criteria are. But I think the suggestions are a way for future comercial monetization – a thought Jason Calacanis had – so possible not quite pure.
Obviously with a deeper access of the relationships between people on Twitter it would be easier.
24 AussieWebmaster // Jan 19, 2009 at 9:14 am
Excuse the typos above – sometimes the fingers and the laptop go astray.
25 Mark Drapeau // Jan 19, 2009 at 9:46 am
I think it’s great you’re thinking about this, but I’m not sure if it’s relevant with Twitter as it is in the book.
I’ve got about about 1/10 (@cheeky_geeky), purely accidental, and I think it’s because I’m a bit of a maven and people want to listen. But, I also spend a fair amount of time as a connector. Not as much as Brogan, no doubt. But where do you draw the line?
Thanks.
26 denisbhancock // Jan 19, 2009 at 10:05 am
Mark – exactly my question. Where is the line? As noted in the comments between the two posts, the expectations are that Twitter enables a blurring of the lines – everyone doing a bit of everything. But there seems to be something potentially valuable around bucketing people based on “primary” activity.
At first blush, you’re story looks exactly like what a protypical “maven” story might look at – acquiring such a ratio by “accident”, having that many people follow you without a reciprocal follow-back, etc. Perhaps a maven that also happens to connect, rather than a connector that also happens to be a maven?
27 The Tipping Point, Twitter, and the power of a single word: what if I said ‘persuader’ instead of ’salesman’? « Exploring where economics, marketing, and new technologies collide // Jan 19, 2009 at 2:31 pm
[...] Twitter users lately, and I have generated a significant amount of discussion around my previous two posts trying to tie Twitter behavior to the Tipping Point theories. While I have been learning a [...]
28 A potential framework for how different brands are using Twitter « Exploring where economics, marketing, and new technologies collide // Mar 13, 2009 at 9:52 am
[...] how people use Twitter, with the concepts Malcolm Gladwell laid out in the Tipping Point (see here and here). While progress has been stalled on this front (even though I’m convinced that [...]
29 Wikinomics» Blog Archive » Dunbar, Gladwell, Collaboration and Twitter // Jun 18, 2009 at 10:05 am
[...] about how Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point theories might apply to Twitter (original post here, and the next step here), which makes sense given a lot of his theories were grounded in [...]
30 My week in tweets – 9 personal reactions and interactions | Life Long Learning // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm
[...] How might Gladwell / Tipping Point theories apply to Twitter users? [...]
Leave a Comment