« rethinking information/content | Main | Forrester to Agencies: You're Doing It Wrong »


"Actions really do speak louder than words - we change our actions by copying the behaviors of those around us so that we feel more comfortable in our surroundings, we most often do not change them by listening to people talk about it."

I concur, Paul. Thank you for adding to the conversation in such a thoughtful way. Talk is cheap, even though it can change our lives. Glad to meet you, virtually.

Excellent wrap up, Paul. And that study sounds fascinating!

I am still mulling this over ... and I am liking the Watts model and what Mark Earls "analogic communication".

In part I think it still seems like we are trying to shoehorn an old idea into a new boot (or is it the other way around). There will be influencers and they are important in that they will help spread a conversation (so they provide reach). But they don't necessarily "tip" a trend. They give it amplification. It is likely that a web of "weak links" below that provide impetus for changes in thinking or behaviour (no research on that - just my own speculation).

Some great points here - thanks. For a different take on this you might find this new book an insightful read - www.influencerMarketingBook.com

Valeria - thanks for dropping by and saying hello. And thanks for adding your thoughts. Nice to meet you virtually as well.

Gavin - the study was quite fascinating. I was hoping that I could share more of it but was asked not to, thus the delay in the post going up.

I agree that there will always be those who have more influence than others on certain topics and for those that talk to them on those topics, their voice is louder than the rest.

In the end though, I think the weight of the idea itself and the general population's readiness for that idea is what makes it tip. At that point, the "weak links" spread it amongst each other - which is the masses - because of it filling a need of some sort for them. Otherwise, if the idea is poor or the market is not interested/ready, it dies once it hits someone who has no interest in it/passion for it.

Scott - Thanks for the link. I'll look into it. Just tried to go there and wouldn't go through. Will try again later.

nice points.
I think Gavin's point wins it for me "we are trying to shoehorn an old idea into a new boot".
I feel that the trends game has changed so hugely since it was conceptualised all those years ago that it is barely relevant as a model any more. As our societal fragmentation increases we have begun to change the way we interact with different groups, as you pointed out.
Groups will now adopt the part of the story that is relevant to them, not necessarily the whole thing.
It's now perhaps more strains of a disease rather than one disease.

The comments to this entry are closed.