Draft 1

AOL. MySpace. Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. We live in a society of trends. Some of these trends last, but most don’t. As proven by the above list, some of these have already faded into the last decade. Inevitably, a new trend will come along that pushes the older one out of the public eye. How do these trends even begin? Why do some trends catch on and blow through the population like a wind storm, while others are stuck in a stage as if struck by lightning? Most of us have likely had the experience of the latter, hoping to provide innovation or invention for what we have in our minds as a great idea, but seemingly never able to do it. Is it really enough to simply believe in our message and “never give up” or are we missing certain aspects to our innovation that keeps our message from spreading through the population?

“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently engrave into our minds and hope is enough motivation for us to make a move in the specific message that we are trying to spread. For me, the phrase itself, screamed by my high school tennis coach, is the most memorable message that I have ever received in my life---an unarguable “dramatic moment” that became the tipping point for my tennis career. Perhaps the reason it is so memorable for me is that the environment or context that I received it in was on the tennis court---the place that I felt most comfortable in when I was in high school.

Not only did this message touch on my tennis career, but I also apply the idea to my academic, professional, and extracurricular activities. The message spread through me like wildfire. Although diffusion of a message throughout one person’s life may not be as difficult as attempting to innovate or begin a trend for an entire world, the ideas behind it remain the same. The three words, “never give up” have stuck with me so strongly in the last 7 years not only because it’s a powerful message, or because the person who relayed the message to me was someone that I trusted. It was a combination of these two factors, along with the context and environment which I received it in that allowed the message to spread throughout my mind and life the way that it did. Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes these three rules that cause the Tipping Point to be: The Stickiness Factor, The Law of the Few, and the Law of Context.

Ironically, an ingredient of stickiness is that it is often opposing to the typical ideas of society. For example, television was a product that parents disliked, labeling it an education-killer. By making children’s primary form of entertainment, television, educational, the makers of Sesame Street spread the virus of literacy through the agent of infection, television. This educational Tipping Point would give children a head start, and then these children would continue to spread the show onto their parents and other children (Gladwell 89.) After running several experiments, a decision was made to combine the fantasy and real elements together, keeping the children’s interest in the show. By changing just a small critical area of the show, the producers of Sesame Street created not only a cultural phenomenon, but the beginning of the educational television that graces any household with a child and Nickelodeon today.

The interesting aspect of “stickiness” is that in order to make a message sticky, you don’t need to change the substance. The writers of Sesame Street simply mixed the fantasy character with real adult figures. Essentially, the stickiness in a message comes in the way its packaged. The results of the small critical change are felt 40 years later due to the small critical modification that caused the tipping point. Sticky messages are able to transcend popular beliefs; for example, Sesame Street was able to turn television into an educational phenomenon.

Although this message of “stickiness” is clearly important, I feel Gladwell spends a bit too much time discussing this factor, primarily because it is the most obvious one of each of the factors. Partially, because most of the time when we have challenges designing effective change, the problem lies in the “effectiveness” not in the “design. In other words, the problem is in the ability to apply our design, which is more relative to the Law of the Few and Law of Concept theories outlined. How can we apply the message that we create? According to Gladwell, much of the answer lies in who we choose to spread the word.

Growing up, even on the playground, we always notice that one child who seems to be the loudest. The bossiest. The one that convinces all the other kids on the block to do what he or she wants. I know I always admired this personality who was able to take an idea and spread it around to all of the other kids. Even now, it seems as if some people just have “it” and some people don’t. What is “it”? Apparently, there is not only one “it”, but three. Gladwell describes three different types of personalities as those who are able to spread change, to create the tipping point that produces an epidemic.

When most of us think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, we think of that dominant, outgoing, personality who is the most popular or knows everyone. This is what Gladwell describes as a “connector”. Connectors are the type of people that have 1500 Facebook friends, the type of people who easily meet friends and acquaintances and retain a solid social network. Roger Horchow, a successful business man from Dallas, is depicted in the book as a social-network fiend. He “collects people the way others collect stamps”(45). Horchow keeps track of acquaintances’ birthdays, and essentially keeps in touch with everyone that he meets.

Doing what Horchow does is unimaginable to me; in my opinion, the most elaborate and exaggerated example in the book. I think there are many excellent connectors, or what we would call “networkers” in the world, but not in the way that Horchow is described---writing down everyone’s name and so completely happy with calling someone a friend after meeting him once. Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without having the discomfort that most of us have when talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people that have various connections, such as a dean that could put us in touch with whoever we need to answer our questions. We try to build connections with a diverse group of recruiters as we know that they have connections to that full-time job or internship. This is because it’s a fact that building relationships with other people has a direct correlation with job placement, as 56 percent of people find their job through a personal connection (54). It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that connectors, people with all of these relationships are those that are responsible for the “word of mouth” epidemics. It only makes sense---the more people you know, the more people you tell, the more people who believe in an idea.
One of the ways that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many various people was because he kept a personal book of their contact information. The emergence of social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) and technology (Blackberry, IPhone) has allowed us to basically be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology that we are apart of really facilitates and makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. But the results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. Even the school library has a Facebook page to spread the word about any events coming up.

So, for many of us, Facebook—the site of connections, the site that helps us become better connected, is a news source as well. It’s the source college students use to learn about library events, concerts, and parties. Sure to be a shocker for the 21st century, there are people to do this too. While connectors are those who connect us to the right people, mavens are those who connect us to proper information. Mavens are a remarkable amount of expert knowledge in certain areas, and use that information to help others to get the best deal or find that best restaurant. Mavens are convincing, without being conniving. We consistently take their advice because they want to help, not “twist our arm”. A maven, essentially, is a data “bank” and uses that knowledge to help others.

A bank, in the sense of the word, is defined as a location of many of the same type of resource; we usually think of this as a location with the resource of money. Banking institutions don’t believe in giving loans to those without credit, because the risk that the lenders will default on their loans is not worth the little interest that the banking institution may possibly receive on the small loan. However, Muhammad Yunus proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest it. Yunus, a learned man of economics, was simply looking for a way to apply the degree that he was lucky enough to earn. In small integrals, their return on income grows, and they move above the poverty line. This idea of “microcrediting” seems to contradict the idea of profit and economic growth, but in fact succeeds in “stickiness”. The financing grows from Yunus’ own pocket to an actual banking institution. The 20 dollars that Yunus used was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brings millions of people out of poverty. Just as a “small” investment for the poor helps them change their lives around greatly, a small push from Yunus’ to apply his knowledge in economics is what gave microfinancing that push it needed. Yunus is the ideal example of a maven, a person who uses his obsession with subject matter (ie: economics) to help get others the best deal.

Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for a connector and a maven. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector because he helped discover the message that the British were coming(maven), and then used it to pass along (connector). Without a connector, a maven has no source to spread its knowledge, and without a maven, a connector has no data to spread.

The third group of people that Gladwell describes are the Salesmen. This group includes that outgoing “salesman” personality type that many of us think of when we think of words such as: persuasive, ruthless, and maybe even annoying. Gladwell, however, says that the traits of a salesman are energy, enthusiasm, charm, and likeability. If there is one concept that Gladwell describes greatly in this chapter, or even in the book, it’s subtlety. The common theme throughout the Tipping Point is that small things do matter and make a big difference. For salesmen, the subtleties in what they do are what make them persuasive. Dan Rather’s slight bias and smiling during particular portions of news reporting caused favorability towards that subject matter to spike up. Any sort of bias shown by a newscaster may not seem obvious to the audience, but in fact does change the way they view news stories.

The dynamics of “The Law of the Few” are constantly changing in the technology-filled world that we are a part of. As described with Facebook, various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. The ideas presented in The Law of the Few are very ideal, but very general. Gladwell seems to decipher each person as an innate-born of that type, which makes that perfect connector impossible to find. However, a high percentage of Generation Y likely feel as if they are connectors. This trait is pushed along by our surrounding environment and technology---what Gladwell describes to be the “Law of Context”.

On a campus with 40,000 students, I am under the impression that everywhere I go, I will know someone. As narcissistic as that sounds, it’s probably not that far off from what most students on this campus think. The close-knit environment where we all live within a 2-mile radius of each other may be one reason for this, but our connections on campus come primarily from our student organizations: one of the 1100 Registered Student Organizations on campus. I am personally a member of a business fraternity of approximately 100 members. We initiate approximately 20 members each semester. What has always stricken me about my business fraternity is the way in which we are able to transform a young pledge class with little knowledge about the professional world into one that takes these ideals of professionalism, brotherhood, and responsibility and molds it onto future pledge classes. In additional to teaching our principles onto others, we also share a responsibility. As a business fraternity, we often work with the Business Career Services and help advertise or spread the news about any events they may have coming up.

Our ability to make an impact on first, each other, and then on the rest of the community (in our case, the College of Business) is what Gladwell calls “The Power of 150”. Only in smaller groups, under 150, can change be spread. Most of the organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. The biggest Greek System on campus has around 150 people in each sorority or fraternity group. People know each other well enough that we feel the need to spread the change, and be productive contributors to an idea. Peer pressure can be extremely important to innovation and making ideas better. We saw this in Atul Gawande’s Better. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons that hand washing is a such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict that cause a virus to a particular patient. Having the responsibility put on you makes a big difference.

Other characteristics make a big difference too, though. While Tipping Point does a good job at pointing out characteristics that every trend includes, readers should be careful to look at this as an exhaustive list. Gladwell simplifies effective change into 279 pages, when in reality, change isn’t only about the input and process behind the cause, but also the outlying factors of the status quo and the competitors of change.

In the end, Gladwell’s inspiring story of how “small changes can make a big difference” displayed the truths of his very own ideas. The Tipping Point became a New York Times best seller, a book read by business classes, companies, and inspiring entrepreneurs all over the world. Gladwell, himself, has been able to create a “tipping point” for the book by the very same name.