Comments on: Tipping Points and the Psychology of Influence

By: Dan Berne

Dan Berne — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:37:15 +0000

Great comments. I do believe there is a difference between the B2B and B2C worlds. In the business world, influencers tend to be viewed as pragmatic (especially in the Bowling Alley and Early Tornado phases of adoption). The consumer world seems to have a greater appetite for paying premium prices for products that have cultural capital associated with them. Personally I’ll pay more for Henckle kitchen knife because I love to cook and I “feel like a chef” because I’m influenced by chefs on HGTV.

By: Dan Keldsen

Dan Keldsen — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:16:37 +0000

Stephen – like bees to honey, your title line caught me! (ah, persuasive copy)
To simplify all decision-making as “purely” experts OR peers (or “the wisdom of crowds”) is well, just a tad naive. And as much as I like and believe in many cases when “collective intelligence” or even when the voice of an “influencer” is useful, they are not for all things at all times.
I’d agree with Seni, in the comments, that people are distributed across the “adoption curve” in their decision-making process.
Further, that it’s not consistent, even for the same type of decision, from decision A to decision B, and that, as a marketer, or salesperson, or plain ol’ person, you need to have the appropriate tools at hand and learn how to use the best one for the situation.
And for anyone who hasn’t already read it, Dr. Robert Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion is a really great book – a bit dry, and somewhat dated at times, but overall, rock solid.
Some of it may seem obvious, but it’s nice to see when “common sense” aligns or collides with the research to back up tendencies to reactions of persuasion techniques.

By: Paul Acosta

Paul Acosta — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:46:59 +0000

Denny: You may well have a point. It’s a fascinating experiment when you jott down activities you’ve recently done and see how they were affected by your peers. But I still think that it’s the experts who create the initial (and possibly) the last reaction we may have toward a product or idea.
Movies — experts get to see them first, create buzz, this determines how many theaters will join for release, more theaters = more exposure. We go with group of friends and we all leave dissatisfied. However, the theater already has our money.
A new pill will probably enjoy some w-o-m among friends but doctors are the last word toward its utter success or dismal failure (companies pay more to doctors who promote their meds in-house = doctors recommend to more patients = probability increases that one of those patients is a friend = we are introduced to the product). Experts again.
It’s a very interesting topic that really makes you wonder (all over again) — who came first, chicken or egg? Thank you!

By: Stephen Denny

Stephen Denny — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:52:46 +0000

Sowmya: yes, I have no problem with Watts’ contention that “influencers” are not homogenous. But I’d stop short of “randomness.” When confronted with conditions of uncertainty in matters of taste, we look to many, similar others and are influenced by their collective, demonstrated choices. We look to people like ourselves and see what they’ve already chosen. So that isn’t random at all — that’s very personal.
In apparel or fashion, we look to people we know, like and feel social connections with; this may also include “liking”, which addresses celebrity endorsement, as well.

By: Sowmya

Sowmya — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:43:08 +0000

I may be wrong, but when you say the definition of the “influencer” changes with subject matter, aren’t you seconding Watt’s theory of randomness. After all who knows who constitutes the influencer(s) in a particular area, say apparel?

By: Stephen Denny

Stephen Denny — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:21:41 +0000

Thanks for your insights — sorry to weigh in so late in the day –
Toad: I’m not sure about the deep math, but the science says the following:
Objectivity/Fact: Authority
Subjectivity/Taste: Peers
Paul: I think it’s fair to say that movie critics have absolutely no impact whatsoever on box office results. Taste – and thus the ‘consensus’ of our peers – rules.

By: Paul Acosta

Paul Acosta — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:29:32 +0000

The way my own point of view goes is that experts do have the power to create “buzz” which in turn filters itself down to the masses.
Taking the movie business as an example, the experts (aka critics) are the individuals that are able to see something first hand (in this case, a motion picture) and have the means to create a wave that may result in either popularity (through the news media by endorsing the product) or disenchantment (again, through the news media). This sentiment is then spread through the different channels to reach the social groups in the general population.

By: Toad

Toad — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:15:04 +0000

I’m surprised no attempt was made to determine what categories peers had more influence in and what categories people deferred to experts. A behavior that probably varies from person to person.
It just seems that disregarding an experts opinion of what constitutes good music is a lot different than disregarding their opinion of what constitutes a good car.

By: Lee Erickson

Lee Erickson — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:18:39 +0000

In the world of B2B (where my head is), I think it’s less about A-list vs. friends and more about how often a prospect sees your product or company mentioned as they troll the web for information.
Just the fact that a lot of people are talking about a company or a product can raise awareness for a company. The collective intelligence of the group has influence on whether the prospect looks further into the company/product.
For the B2B world (vs. media and entertainment) social media is really in its infancy. As more and more companies integrate social media into their marketing and sales strategy, it will be interesting to see who the influences are.
For now I think it’s the collective intelligence of the group that may be seen as an “expert” and therefore a big influencer.

By: Paul Barsch

Paul Barsch — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:22:59 +0000

Stephen, enjoyed this post.
Watts, if you believe him, is effectively killing a sacred cow in not only in advertising, but many other industries like entertainment–hence the heated response to his theories.
One of his most important points is the effect of randomization in influencing–that influence is not a nice easy daisy chain where the most influential trickles down the latest styles, fashions etc to the rest of us. Watts seems to say that while there is a role for the super influencer, “influence” is much more complex than Gladwell, Keller et al make it out to be due to random effects from variables that are unpredictable and “accidental”.

By: Seni Thomas

Seni Thomas — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:07:48 +0000

Where Watt’s theory falls apart is that he is analyzing people as a homogeneous group. Thing is people are located across the adoption curve. Trendsetters don’t care about consensus, in fact they want to walk in the opposite direction. In addition, trendsetters don’t need to have clout, because they have amplifiers in various other social groups that allow the trend to grow. Finally, it does become accepted enough that the more conservative mass populace adopts it.
Friends are friends, but everyone looks to the cool kid in class, or celebrities, or anyone else with clout. Furthermore, there are different degrees of amplifiers. Every group of friends has one guy thats the tech person, or the fashion person, etc. that is an amplifier for their area of expertise, which then filters through the group.